Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

F1 Future Engine Poll


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

Poll: F1 Future Engine (113 member(s) have cast votes)

Which one would you fancy?

  1. 1.6 litre V6 1000 hp @ 13100 rpm (32 votes [28.32%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 28.32%

  2. 1.4 litre V6 1000 hp @ 15000 rpm (9 votes [7.96%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.96%

  3. 1.2 litre V6 1000 hp @ 17500 rpm (7 votes [6.19%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.19%

  4. 1.0 litre V6 1000 hp @ 21000 rpm (23 votes [20.35%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.35%

  5. 2.2 litre V8 >1000 hp @ 17000* rpm (Ferrari's proposal according to AMuS) (42 votes [37.17%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 37.17%

Which one would make most sense to all parties?

  1. 1.6 litre V6 1000 hp @ 13100 rpm (56 votes [49.56%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 49.56%

  2. 1.4 litre V6 1000 hp @ 15000 rpm (7 votes [6.19%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.19%

  3. 1.2 litre V6 1000 hp @ 17500 rpm (6 votes [5.31%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.31%

  4. 1.0 litre V6 1000 hp @ 21000 rpm (13 votes [11.50%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.50%

  5. 2.2 litre V8 >1000 hp @ 17000* rpm (Ferrari's proposal according to AMuS) (31 votes [27.43%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.43%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 inox

inox
  • Member

  • 340 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 27 January 2015 - 22:08

What would be the best way to change current engine format so that it would be both cost effective and fascinating for the fans? In an ideal world I would like to get normally aspirated V12's back, but that is not going to happen. We are stuck with turbos as manufacturers want them.

 

As far as I understand, the current 1.6 litre V6 is producing about 800 hp @ 10500 rpm. Recently there have been proposals to make F1 engines produce 1000 hp. In theory this requires increasing of fuel allowance from 100kg/h to about 125kg/h. Engine would then rev to about 13100 rpm. Sound wise this would be improvement but would it be enough? Should we make engines even smaller to increase revs while keeping the power at suitable level?

 

I have created a poll where I ask your opinion of what engine configuration would you prefer and also what would be the most sensible choice (compromise) considering the needs of manufacturers, costs and the show. I have added four options for V6, using linear calculations for approximating the revs in each format. As a wild card I have added also Ferrari's proposal about 2.2 litre twin turbo V8 (recent news by AMuS) which from the looks of things is using lower Turbo pressure levels to limit the power to decent level. 

 

And sorry, I have left V10 and V12 configurations out of this poll as they would be unrealistic options for Turbo engines in these days.

 

 

EDIT:

*  The quoted rpm figure for proposed V8 engine (17000 rpm) is not comparable with V6 proposals (which have quoted the lowest rpm figure for maximum power, comparable to current generation figures of 800 hp @ 10500 rpm). The V8 is also likely to produce max power at much lower revs.


Edited by inox, 28 January 2015 - 20:05.


Advertisement

#2 krod

krod
  • Member

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 January 2015 - 22:18

No I4 option?



#3 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 6,371 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 27 January 2015 - 22:22

Ferrari denied proposing that engine iirc.

 

I would be happy with dumping the gimmicky fuel flow sensors completely and giving the current engines a big bump in RPM. 


Edited by MikeV1987, 27 January 2015 - 22:36.


#4 inox

inox
  • Member

  • 340 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 27 January 2015 - 22:22

No I4 option?

 

No. I assume everybody wants more revs!  :stoned:



#5 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 2,992 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 27 January 2015 - 22:22

The poll comes across as trying to exaggerate the vote for the V8 engines by splitting the V6 vote between 4 options.



#6 inox

inox
  • Member

  • 340 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 27 January 2015 - 22:34

The poll comes across as trying to exaggerate the vote for the V8 engines by splitting the V6 vote between 4 options.

 

Not my intention as I prefer V6 in this case. I was thinking about this possibility, but decided not to make poll even more complex. In the end we should still get a some indication whether popular opinion is to stick with V6 or opt for V8.



#7 krod

krod
  • Member

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 January 2015 - 22:39

A 1.0 V6 would sound pretty interesting (like a howling banshee on helium), and they'll be in the exciting half of the reliability chart...



#8 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 28 January 2015 - 00:40

I would be happy with dumping the gimmicky fuel flow sensors completely and giving the current engines a big bump in RPM. 

 

How would you propose capping power to around 1000hp?



#9 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 4,954 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 28 January 2015 - 02:08

Life W12

#10 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 10,082 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 28 January 2015 - 02:53

Life W12

 

Nah, it's all about the Subaru/Motori Moderni flat-12....



#11 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 10,082 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 28 January 2015 - 02:56

It's only the fuel flow restrictions that are really holding back these current engines from producing big power. Get rid of that and allow more boost and you've got 1000bhp+ on tap easily.

 

What I really think should be looked at more is increasing the % of total power the ERS contributes. Look at the horsepower figures that are getting quoted for the new Nissan LMP1, and Toyota already have a 1000bhp car with their combination of V8 and massively powerful capacitor ERS tech.



#12 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 28 January 2015 - 03:29

It's only the fuel flow restrictions that are really holding back these current engines from producing big power. Get rid of that and allow more boost and you've got 1000bhp+ on tap easily.

 

Boost is currently unrestricted.

 

The fuel flow limit could be adjusted to allow ~1000hp and higher rpm.

 

If you kept the same fuel flow equation (0.009 * rpm + 5,.5) until 13,000rpm then the fuel flow rate would be 122.5kg/h. If we then suppose the current engines are ~650hp and that the efficiency remains approximately the same th epower would be ~796hp.Add the 160hp ERS on and you're at 955hp.

 

If you instead fixed the fuel flow rate at 13,500rpm the rate would be 127kg/h and power of the ICE ~825hp, for a total of 980hp.

 

If you made the fixed region from 14,000rpm+ the ICE power would be ~855hp and total power ~1015hp.

 

Of course the fuel companies will strive to get better energy density in their fuels, so even more power could be produced.



#13 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 4,954 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 28 January 2015 - 03:50

Nah, it's all about the Subaru/Motori Moderni flat-12....


Good choice but the Life looks absolutely ridiculous though. At least the Subaru appears sensible from the outside.

#14 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 10,082 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 28 January 2015 - 03:59

Good choice but the Life looks absolutely ridiculous though. At least the Subaru appears sensible from the outside.

 

That's true, but does the Life weigh the same as a planet? Subaru has that going for it... it's sheer density and mass!



#15 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 28 January 2015 - 04:05

The structure of this proposal for V-6's is that for less displacement, more RPM. But as you shrink the displacement the engine is subject to more internal stress, and with more RPM that is magnified. So for the smallest displacement with the most RPM, reliability and cost raises it's very ugly head. It is a lot cheaper to design and construct an engine with more displacement and less RPM.



#16 Wes350

Wes350
  • Member

  • 407 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 28 January 2015 - 06:35

Simplify the overly complicated engine formula, and let the manufacturers sort what type of configuration is best for the 1.6L displacement...

 

1.6L single Turbo,  4-6 cylinders, flat, inline, or V.  

 

With the usual caveats about exotic materials.

 

Just the single 60Kw kers unit everyone had been using - with unlimited use.

 

Brake by wire, and the various complicated subsystems; Bin them. Too much added complexity for too little PR gain.

 

The 100L fuel flow limit is fine as a starting point; The FIA should make a provision to allow them to increase it between races as they see how much the teams are short filling their tanks. (So gradually more power as the season goes on...)

 

Unlimited engine development - but the customer teams cannot be charged more than 10 million US per season. (A defacto cost cap.)



#17 anbeck

anbeck
  • Member

  • 2,677 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 28 January 2015 - 07:00

Life W12

 

 

Nah, it's all about the Subaru/Motori Moderni flat-12....

 

 

Together, they even get to the 1000hp we're looking for!



#18 Absulute

Absulute
  • Member

  • 1,049 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 28 January 2015 - 07:39

Wankel!



#19 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,740 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 28 January 2015 - 08:27

Boost is currently unrestricted.

 

The fuel flow limit could be adjusted to allow ~1000hp and higher rpm.

 

If you kept the same fuel flow equation (0.009 * rpm + 5,.5) until 13,000rpm then the fuel flow rate would be 122.5kg/h. If we then suppose the current engines are ~650hp and that the efficiency remains approximately the same th epower would be ~796hp.Add the 160hp ERS on and you're at 955hp.

 

If you instead fixed the fuel flow rate at 13,500rpm the rate would be 127kg/h and power of the ICE ~825hp, for a total of 980hp.

 

If you made the fixed region from 14,000rpm+ the ICE power would be ~855hp and total power ~1015hp.

 

Of course the fuel companies will strive to get better energy density in their fuels, so even more power could be produced.

 

Thank you. I didn't have the time to play with the numbers to get this info.

 

What I think is much more likely is that they change the equation and maybe shift it up the RPM range by 1,000rpm or so. That would limit the changes required to the engine (if you peaked fuel flow at 14,000rpm I doubt they'd get away with it with the current Bore/Stroke setup the engines have without heavily redesigning) but give the power and a bit better sound.



Advertisement

#20 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 28 January 2015 - 08:32

I'd also suggest they allow anti-lag fuel burning in the exhaust ahead of teh turbine. That should make it louder and, hopefully, produce some flames.



#21 B3ndy

B3ndy
  • Member

  • 162 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 28 January 2015 - 09:02

A 1.0 V6 would sound pretty interesting (like a howling banshee on helium), and they'll be in the exciting half of the reliability chart...

 

Reminds me of my first car, Mini 998cc, which by the time I'd finished with it did sound like a howling banshee...

 

...then blew up!



#22 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,497 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 28 January 2015 - 09:39

If I vote the first one twice, could we get a 3,2liter V12 turbo?  :love:



#23 Gridfire

Gridfire
  • Member

  • 887 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 28 January 2015 - 09:40

I'm conflicted in wanting an engine formula that is cheap enough to allow new teams without the Sultan of Brunei as a necessary sponsor, but advanced enough to still be at the cutting edge of engine technology. F1 is so restricted in so many ways these days that it feels increasingly primitive next to the current range of hypercars, instead of being the pinnacle of motorsport as advertised.

 

I don't particularly feel more cylinders alone is somehow 'better', I'd rather have more innovative technology in a modern I4 than some 1950s V8 Hemi: Much like computer CPUs used to be compared by clockspeed alone (in Hz), now Intel and AMD have found other ways to increase the power and function of their units, while keeping the old measurement at roughly the same figure.



#24 TheRacingElf

TheRacingElf
  • Member

  • 2,267 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 28 January 2015 - 10:31

And sorry, I have left V10 and V12 configurations out of this poll as they would be unrealistic options for Turbo engines in these days.

 

Not going to vote then



#25 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 17,874 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 28 January 2015 - 10:40

Am I the only one who doesn't really care which engine format they use as long as they stop bickering over cost saving while ironically constantly demanding a new engine format within the next 2 years?



#26 Gyno

Gyno
  • Member

  • 657 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:02

Why not ALL OF THE ABOVE option?

If you wanna make F1 interesting that is, then you should allow the teams/manufactors to use what ever they want.



#27 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 28 January 2015 - 12:03

Together, they even get to the 1000hp we're looking for!


And by the end of a race, they might still have 10 cylinders working. That'll make everyone happy!

#28 Jacobss

Jacobss
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 28 January 2015 - 13:11

Not going to vote then

Me neither.

 

:rolleyes:

 

I want V10. Thats it.


Edited by Jacobss, 28 January 2015 - 13:11.


#29 Sukhoi

Sukhoi
  • Member

  • 328 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 28 January 2015 - 13:20

BMW could make a comeback with thier famous R6 if V6 engines were to stay, I belive power output for v6 and r6 should be similar... I am right ?



#30 shonguiz

shonguiz
  • Member

  • 3,714 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 28 January 2015 - 13:29

You mean L6 ?



#31 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,740 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 28 January 2015 - 13:38

I'd also suggest they allow anti-lag fuel burning in the exhaust ahead of teh turbine. That should make it louder and, hopefully, produce some flames.

 

They can do this already, can they not, or is that a remnant of the blown floor regs? That they need to limit exhaust valve opening on overrun?

 

However, they do have an MGU-H for anti-lag so it would be purely for sound...and not a very nice sound.



#32 inox

inox
  • Member

  • 340 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 28 January 2015 - 17:49

Ferrari denied proposing that engine iirc.

 

 

Where did you find this? I thought AMuS reported about the proposal last week. Has Ferrari denied this since then?

http://www.auto-moto...er-9175979.html



#33 inox

inox
  • Member

  • 340 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 28 January 2015 - 19:00

Anyway, I do need to admit that 17000 rpm for 2.2 litre turbo engine sounds too much for 1000 hp. Perhaps it is just a reference figure for current generation engines with 15000 rev limit. But as we know these rev only to ~12000 rpm and produce the maximum power already at ~10500 rpm. "Ferrari's proposal" is then likely to have a lot less rpm unless turbo pressure is limited,  perhaps max power produced already at 12500 rpm.


Edited by inox, 28 January 2015 - 19:02.


#34 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 28 January 2015 - 22:04

Anyway, I do need to admit that 17000 rpm for 2.2 litre turbo engine sounds too much for 1000 hp. Perhaps it is just a reference figure for current generation engines with 15000 rev limit. But as we know these rev only to ~12000 rpm and produce the maximum power already at ~10500 rpm. "Ferrari's proposal" is then likely to have a lot less rpm unless turbo pressure is limited,  perhaps max power produced already at 12500 rpm.

 

To me it reads that the major aim of Ferrari is to get rid of the current V6 based power packages with frozen specifications and limitations on developments that make it so difficult, if not impossible to make up ground on Mercedes. Even if they have the technology to close the gap with Mercedes, mayge even surpass them, the freeze rule makes it impossble to make use of everything they may have learned this past year.

The best they can hope for is have the current engines being parked for whatever reasons and make sure that everyone has to start all over again with a new concept so the F1 scene may end up with more equal engines then they do now.

 

2.2l turbocharged V8 peaking at 17.000 rpm and 1000 hp, that suggests that the levels of turbo boost won't be that high at all. But I don't think that is really what they want. Jus making sure everyone has to start all over again, I think that is the primary target for Ferrari.

Anything to get around those current rules that limit their opportunities for making progress.

 

Henri


Edited by Henri Greuter, 28 January 2015 - 22:05.


#35 Sukhoi

Sukhoi
  • Member

  • 328 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 28 January 2015 - 22:26

You mean L6 ?

Yup, got caught by translation, it's called r6 only in my country.

 

 

 

"the V6 is smoother than the I4 and adequately smooth for the average consumer. Buyers of luxury and/or performance cars who are not price sensitive or fuel economy minded might prefer an inline 6, which has comparable fuel economy and power but better smoothness, a flat 6 which combines better smoothness and often higher power with adequate fuel economy, or a V8 which has better smoothness and higher power, but worse fuel economy."

 

could be interesting


Edited by Sukhoi, 28 January 2015 - 22:32.


#36 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 28 January 2015 - 23:43

They can do this already, can they not, or is that a remnant of the blown floor regs? That they need to limit exhaust valve opening on overrun?

 

However, they do have an MGU-H for anti-lag so it would be purely for sound...and not a very nice sound.

 

The fuel can only be injected directly into the cylinder. Not before or after.

 

I'd be more interested in the flame creating opportunities!



#37 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 5,341 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 29 January 2015 - 22:21

Hopefully something that sounds a lot better than these current growling dogs.



#38 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 29 January 2015 - 23:26

Goofball choices.

 

We all know what the fans want.  The only reason They skirt around it is that you've got Cosworth and others waiting in the wings to swoop down and actually be competitive with less bozoic Goldbergian formula, against the status quo.



#39 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 30 January 2015 - 01:59

Goofball choices.

 

We all know what the fans want.  The only reason They skirt around it is that you've got Cosworth and others waiting in the wings to swoop down and actually be competitive with less bozoic Goldbergian formula, against the status quo.

 

The fans aint going to get.

 

If the engine formula does change I believe it will be substantially built around the current V6 - ie, ~1.6l in capacity (may be lowered) with turbos - be they single or twin. There will be no V8 or V10.

 

Also, if Mercedes were serious in using their ERS as a standard unit I can see no reason why they wouldn't offer it for sale to engine builder such as Cosworth. Surely Cosworth could build a V6 turbo as competitively as they do a V8 or V10?



Advertisement

#40 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 30 January 2015 - 04:13

The current engines are perfect. 



#41 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 30 January 2015 - 15:25

The fans aint going to get.

 

If the engine formula does change I believe it will be substantially built around the current V6 - ie, ~1.6l in capacity (may be lowered) with turbos - be they single or twin. There will be no V8 or V10.

 

Also, if Mercedes were serious in using their ERS as a standard unit I can see no reason why they wouldn't offer it for sale to engine builder such as Cosworth. Surely Cosworth could build a V6 turbo as competitively as they do a V8 or V10?

 

 

 If they don't do a drastic turnaround, there may not be a 2017 season.   Doing a compromise, another mediocre "solution", and keep ERS clamped down to a non-development state, will kill F1.   You are happy with effectively having a spec ERS system, I am not.  There is no more reason to have a non-open rules ERS system than a V6.   Neither has anything to do with F1. 

 

 

Meanwhile, Elon Musk doesn't care about F1 ERS restrictions.  TESLA P58D ROAD CAR, 0-60 3 seconds:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=LpaLgF1uLB8

 

Heads up, P58D vs. Ferrari 458 Italia:

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cA1doO_9h8

 

 

650 hp, all electric. 

 

Not a V6 to be seen.

 

F1 is "progressive"?  F1 sports "progressive" ERS "technology"?

 

V6 has no more "road relevance" relative to the concept of "progressive technology' than a V10, or a steam engine.  Having Mercedes or McLaren build a frozen ERS system that money can't be thrown at to make better is a COMPLETELY REDUNDANT IDEA IF ONE IS CLAIMING TO BE "progressive".   Why would Cosworth want to have to make something more complicated, involving another manufacturer's components, "just because"?  That is just added complication for ZERO INTELLECTUAL REASONS.   "It has an electric motor involved, so it's "green"? 

 

 F1 should be shifting it's financial resources into competing with making better batteries and ERS systems on an open-ended engineering play field.  Actual real world road car relevant results could occur.  Insisting on a V6 makes no more sense developmentally than a V10.

 

 I say let's have modded street car engines.  That would be interesting, let them spend as much as they like on making whatever their entry level sports car engine is F1-worthy.  800 hp turbo Civic motors vs. Mercedes would be great and interesting, I'd have no problem with the sound or philosophy behind that.  Because it would be the real world, not this "road car relevant because we say so" nonsense.  Race on sunday buy on monday...



#42 readonly

readonly
  • Member

  • 299 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 30 January 2015 - 15:41

Why would fans want a (an) specific formula?

 

Why not ask for great things instead? I wish teams could use just any configuration they want with a single simple limit: weight. Then, if speeds get too high, this limit is reduced. Simple and great. At least to me.



#43 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 9,223 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 31 January 2015 - 21:26

A 1.0 V6 would sound pretty interesting (like a howling banshee on helium), and they'll be in the exciting half of the reliability chart...

 

That would be amazing. It would also be an interesting technical exercise to get something working reliably at such a high RPM level.

 

Or, how about a direct injection two stroke 1.0 V6? That would be incredible.



#44 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 01 February 2015 - 07:56

If they don't do a drastic turnaround, there may not be a 2017 season.   Doing a compromise, another mediocre "solution", and keep ERS clamped down to a non-development state, will kill F1.   You are happy with effectively having a spec ERS system, I am not.  There is no more reason to have a non-open rules ERS system than a V6.   Neither has anything to do with F1. 
 
 
Meanwhile, Elon Musk doesn't care about F1 ERS restrictions.  TESLA P58D ROAD CAR, 0-60 3 seconds:
 
https://www.youtube....h?v=LpaLgF1uLB8
 
Heads up, P58D vs. Ferrari 458 Italia:
 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cA1doO_9h8
 
 
650 hp, all electric. 
 
Not a V6 to be seen.
 
F1 is "progressive"?  F1 sports "progressive" ERS "technology"?
 
V6 has no more "road relevance" relative to the concept of "progressive technology' than a V10, or a steam engine.  Having Mercedes or McLaren build a frozen ERS system that money can't be thrown at to make better is a COMPLETELY REDUNDANT IDEA IF ONE IS CLAIMING TO BE "progressive".   Why would Cosworth want to have to make something more complicated, involving another manufacturer's components, "just because"?  That is just added complication for ZERO INTELLECTUAL REASONS.   "It has an electric motor involved, so it's "green"? 
 
 F1 should be shifting it's financial resources into competing with making better batteries and ERS systems on an open-ended engineering play field.  Actual real world road car relevant results could occur.  Insisting on a V6 makes no more sense developmentally than a V10.
 
 I say let's have modded street car engines.  That would be interesting, let them spend as much as they like on making whatever their entry level sports car engine is F1-worthy.  800 hp turbo Civic motors vs. Mercedes would be great and interesting, I'd have no problem with the sound or philosophy behind that.  Because it would be the real world, not this "road car relevant because we say so" nonsense.  Race on sunday buy on monday...


The V6 is relevent to the manufacturers - the V10 wasn't really.

I agree that the ERS should be opened up some. But while the MGUK and stroage are restructed there is potential development in the MGUH.

Why would Cosworth use an ERS from another manufacturer? Because they don't have enough resources or money to develop suc a system themselves. For them to compete in F1 would require them to break even, at the minimum. If they had to develop a unique ERS by themselve then their PU would either be much more expensive than the others or they would lose money and not be able to continue. Unless, of course, they have manufacturer support.

#45 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,497 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 01 February 2015 - 14:37

What manufacturers? The V10 was way more relevent since there were more manufacturers building one. If that is the criterium, we should go back to the 3.0 V8/10/12 spec.



#46 DILLIGAF

DILLIGAF
  • Member

  • 4,459 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 02 February 2015 - 00:10

I'll go with whichever is the loudest. :)



#47 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 02 February 2015 - 00:13

What manufacturers? The V10 was way more relevent since there were more manufacturers building one. If that is the criterium, we should go back to the 3.0 V8/10/12 spec.

 

The ones that remained when the new engine was formulated.



#48 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 03 February 2015 - 17:55

The V6 is relevent to the manufacturers - the V10 wasn't really.

Why would Cosworth use an ERS from another manufacturer? Because they don't have enough resources or money to develop suc a system themselves. For them to compete in F1 would require them to break even, at the minimum. If they had to develop a unique ERS by themselve then their PU would either be much more expensive than the others or they would lose money and not be able to continue. Unless, of course, they have manufacturer support.

 

 

 Explain technically why a V6 is more relevant than a V10 or an inline 4?

 

Your explanation of why Cosworth would use another manufacturer's ERS isn't relevant, the point is that *it can't be "relevant" if it's frozen, and there IS no reason why Cosworth - or any other manufacturer - would want to use an off the shelf system that is no necessary to propel a race car.  You can't have it both ways - it can't be "relevant" but frozen at the same time. 



#49 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 6,829 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 03 February 2015 - 18:06

The V10 was way more relevent since there were more manufacturers building one.

Was any manufacturer making a V10 before they were used in F1?

 

Dodge might have had one in the Viper by then, can't remember if that was before or after. But that was a truck engine anyway, iirc.



#50 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 4,954 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 04 February 2015 - 04:52

Goofball choices.

We all know what the fans want. The only reason They skirt around it is that you've got Cosworth and others waiting in the wings to swoop down and actually be competitive with less bozoic Goldbergian formula, against the status quo.


What, V10s and V12s?

The only manufacturer that will stay on is Ferrari and maybe Mercedes for prides sake. Those engines have no relevance for Honda or Renault who aren't going to piss away millions on a program with no benefits for their production cars.

You'll have two engines worth having and maybe a Cosworth who will supply the back markers, if there are any left in 2017...