38 replies to this topic

[nickyvida]

Pardon me. Newbie here so i don't really know much about F1.

 

The development of turbocharged engines have been troubled for teams like Mclaren Honda and Renault if im not wrong for this season and Mercedes enjoying dominance so far for most of the races since they have an almost perfect PU while other teams have struggled to match them.

 

I understand that the change had to come someday  but wouldn't it have been better to gradually switch over to turbocharged engines over the course of years rather than abruptly switching to T/C PU's at the start of last season, while reducing the emissions and fuel usage that critics of F1 have judged the sport with on the 2.4l V8s?

 

Perhaps a 3L-3.5L V6 would have done fine for a couple of seasons while teams would have been working on the development for  the eventual introduction of the T/C 1.6L V6 we see today, negating the development hiccups that we see today from the Mchonda and RBR entrants.

 

 

If im not wrong, 3L V6s did exist in formula one, but that was very long ago.

[Tourgott]

F1 would be better off reverting to the status of 2013 and then slowly sorting out things fans don't like, e.g. DRS.

[4Wheeldrift]

The hybrid rules changes were announced years ago (2011 i think) and delayed as they were supposed to be implemented in 2013.  The fact that Honda, and Renault have done such a poor job isn't because they were rushed.  It's because they did a poor job compared to Mercedes and, this season Ferrari.

 

And Ferrari shows that you can improve even within the token system.  So Renault have just done two poor jobs.

 

I think the move to turbo had to come, the road car world is moving to smaller capacity turbo engines, rather than big displacement lumps.

 

And turbos themselves aren't new, are well understood.  It is the hybrid energy delivery that is cutting edge for racing and the problem for Honda and Renault.

[nickyvida]

F1 would be better off reverting to the status of 2013 and then slowly sorting out things fans don't like, e.g. DRS.

 

Agreed, in an ideal world, the V8 should have been continued. But tightening emissions/fuel consumption rules forced the hand, hence the question of downsizing engines or reducing the number of cylinders but increasing the capacity to make up for the difference in horsepower.

 

That brings to mind a question, would a 1.6L V8 have been possible?

[Knowlesy]

Just leave it be. The costs will come down and the technology will be understood better.

What does need to change is the token system/engine freeze nonsense but I thought this during the dark and dreary days of the V8s as well.

[scolbourne]

F1 should be cutting edge. Going back to 3.5 litre na engines would be against  this concept.

I  like to see novel designs and would like to see the rules opened up to other powerplants.

F1 is always expensive and even if racing billy carts the cars would still cost millions.

I am in favour of the current engine designs but think there should be open development through the season and no limit on engines or modifications. I am totally against the token system which means who ever had the best engine (spent the most money) initially , wins the next four seasons.

[nickyvida]

The hybrid rules changes were announced years ago (2011 i think) and delayed as they were supposed to be implemented in 2013.  The fact that Honda, and Renault have done such a poor job isn't because they were rushed.  It's because they did a poor job compared to Mercedes and, this season Ferrari.

 

And Ferrari shows that you can improve even within the token system.  So Renault have just done two poor jobs.

 

I think the move to turbo had to come, the road car world is moving to smaller capacity turbo engines, rather than big displacement lumps.

 

And turbos themselves aren't new, are well understood.  It is the hybrid energy delivery that is cutting edge for racing and the problem for Honda and Renault.

 

I'm not a proponent of turbo cars to be honest, I'd rather they left the whole thing small displacement turbocharged engines to road cars and leave the naturally aspirated engines to the bigwigs in F1 and improve the MGU/KERS/DRS system

 

. There's something about the V8s that just screams F1. The current PU's are just not up to par with regards to past engines.

 

I caught the last of the V8s at the 2013 SGP live at the track and the experience was phenomenal. So yeah, the abrupt change in the engine formula has brought a bad taste in my mouth.

Edited by nickyvida, 19 September 2015 - 09:10.

[PayasYouRace]

Agreed, in an ideal world, the V8 should have been continued. But tightening emissions/fuel consumption rules forced the hand, hence the question of downsizing engines or reducing the number of cylinders but increasing the capacity to make up for the difference in horsepower.

 

That brings to mind a question, would a 1.6L V8 have been possible?

 

No in an ideal world the constructors would have full choice of engine configuration and whether to use forced induction and energy recovery.

 

Ferrari used to built 1.5 l 12-cylinder engines in the sixties, so that's not too weird. The thing is, a gradual transition like in 1987/88 would have been very difficult. Nobody wanted a "two-tier" F1 and simply transitioning through a number of engine configurations would have been very expensive too.

[nickyvida]

No in an ideal world the constructors would have full choice of engine configuration and whether to use forced induction and energy recovery.

 

Ferrari used to built 1.5 l 12-cylinder engines in the sixties, so that's not too weird. The thing is, a gradual transition like in 1987/88 would have been very difficult. Nobody wanted a "two-tier" F1 and simply transitioning through a number of engine configurations would have been very expensive too.

 

 

Oh, what i mean was like using the 3.5L for the current season, while prepping and developing the turbo'd engines in the background for the seasons to come where they would be introduced, phasing out the NA engines eventually, hence reducing the chances of what new engine suppliers would be going through like Mchonda.

[smitten]

I'd rather just give them a maximum fuel load and let them do whatever they wanted with it, but that might be a little pricey!

[Foyle]

Hybrid V6's are expensive due to integration with engine and massive cooling problems caused by aero regs. A bridge too far, these engines probably cost 2-4x as much per season as v8's they replaced (not just engine cost - all the ancilliary costs/issues they create), insane levels of inspection required for reliability are also an issue.

 

If you are going to do multi-race engines then should do a rule that say 7 engines for 20 races and two engines must do 4 races each.

 

I think whatever happens need to get back to the screaming 1200Hz of the v8s.  Cheapest option would be 2-stroke DI v6's running at 12000rpm, or v12 4-strokes at 12000rpm (no pneumatic valve springs).  Engine costs would come back down to $1-200k each rather than ridiculous $3-4million they are now.

[Amphicar]

There is no problem with switching from normally aspirated to turbocharged engines - Honda (for example) have plenty of experience of building successful turbo engines. The problem is integrating the turbo ICE with effective MGU-K, MGU-H and the ES. Optimising the resulting package to work together (and reliably) under race conditions is a serious technical challenge which so far only Mercedes have really mastered. Unfortunately, it doesn't make for viscerally exciting cars or great racing.

[PayasYouRace]

Oh, what i mean was like using the 3.5L for the current season, while prepping and developing the turbo'd engines in the background for the seasons to come where they would be introduced, phasing out the NA engines eventually, hence reducing the chances of what new engine suppliers would be going through like Mchonda.

 

You'd have to pay for two parallel engine programs if you did that. It wouldn't be very cost effective.

 

Restrictive development regulations are not helping McLaren and Honda, but at the end of the day they've just built a bad engine.

[nickyvida]

You'd have to pay for two parallel engine programs if you did that. It wouldn't be very cost effective.

 

Restrictive development regulations are not helping McLaren and Honda, but at the end of the day they've just built a bad engine.

Ah i see. in any case it is a shame that they couldn't have delayed the introduction of T/C engines for the downsizing of engine capacity or cylinders.

[nickyvida]

There is no problem with switching from normally aspirated to turbocharged engines - Honda (for example) have plenty of experience of building successful turbo engines. The problem is integrating the turbo ICE with effective MGU-K, MGU-H and the ES. Optimising the resulting package to work together (and reliably) under race conditions is a serious technical challenge which so far only Mercedes have really mastered. Unfortunately, it doesn't make for viscerally exciting cars or great racing.

 

You got the exciting cars and racing nail on. It seems like a one horse race at this point in time with the season coming to a close.

 

I wonder why couldn't they have kept the NA formula and integrate it with the MGUK/H/DRS packages instead of going T/C?

[PayasYouRace]

Ah i see. in any case it is a shame that they couldn't have delayed the introduction of T/C engines for the downsizing of engine capacity or cylinders.

 

I think the best transition would have been to go to a small turbo engine with similar energy recovery systems to the old KERS, and then lower boost limits and allow greater energy recovery as time went by.

 

Downsizing the engine without compensating with a turbo or more energy recovery would have resulted in very slow cars.

[nickyvida]

I think the best transition would have been to go to a small turbo engine with similar energy recovery systems to the old KERS, and then lower boost limits and allow greater energy recovery as time went by.

 

Downsizing the engine without compensating with a turbo or more energy recovery would have resulted in very slow cars.

 

Hmm i see what you mean. But i wonder what a 3.5l NA V6 would have done if paired up with the MGU energy recovery systems.

 

Surely it can't be too shabby compared to the current T/C 1.6l V6 given the increase in displacement?

Edited by nickyvida, 19 September 2015 - 10:00.

[PayasYouRace]

Hmm i see what you mean. But i wonder what a 3.5l NA V6 would have done if paired up with the MGU energy recovery systems.

 

Surely it can't be too shabby compared to the current T/C 1.6l V6 given the increase in displacement?

 

I can see why you might go for the energy recovery route first, but a lot of the new stuff is tied in with the turbo. But I don't see why having a massive and new NA V6 would be any advantage unless it was a very basic and heavily restricted design. A modern 3.5 l engine would be very powerful on its own. That's what was used from 1987-1994 and they were downsized to 3 l for 1995.

[4Wheeldrift]

I'm not a proponent of turbo cars to be honest, I'd rather they left the whole thing small displacement turbocharged engines to road cars and leave the naturally aspirated engines to the bigwigs in F1 and improve the MGU/KERS/DRS system

 

. There's something about the V8s that just screams F1. The current PU's are just not up to par with regards to past engines.

 

I caught the last of the V8s at the 2013 SGP live at the track and the experience was phenomenal. So yeah, the abrupt change in the engine formula has brought a bad taste in my mouth.

 

I don't see it as abrupt.  It was announced in 2011 and delayed.  Everyone knew it was coming. And having listened to many hours of V10s and V8s, and not being able to listen to my friends - or even hear the tens of thousands of other people at a GP, I am unlikely to miss them.

 

Oh of course they were phenomenal to listen to.  Actually frightening when they downshift as they head towards you.  They seem to be punching the ground.

 

But that quickly got old for me.

[Fatgadget]

You got the exciting cars and racing nail on. It seems like a one horse race at this point in time with the season coming to a close.

I wonder why couldn't they have kept the NA formula and integrate it with the MGUK/H/DRS packages instead of going T/C?

The V6 was the format of future engines those interested in building them wanted.I remember initially a sort of Esperanto I4 was proposed that could be the base of rally engines,touring cars as well as F1.The idea presumably to keep costs down.Obviously this didn't go down well with the likes of Ferrari...Incidentally,whatever happened to PURE ?

[AustinF1]

I don't see it as abrupt.  It was announced in 2011 and delayed.  Everyone knew it was coming. And having listened to many hours of V10s and V8s, and not being able to listen to my friends - or even hear the tens of thousands of other people at a GP, I am unlikely to miss them.

 

Oh of course they were phenomenal to listen to.  Actually frightening when they downshift as they head towards you.  They seem to be punching the ground.

 

But that quickly got old for me.

Never got old for me. Far from it.

[SealTheDiffuser]

No.

[FPV GTHO]

The total power unit HP was intended to be the same as the old V8's pre KERS, which was 760hp roughly. Going to a larger NA engine would never have been on the cards. If they could keep the same revs (unlikely with such heavy pistons) a 3.5 V6 could have produced 1100hp if they retained the same specific output.

I think if they wanted to make a smaller step, the earlier suggestion of the smaller turbocharged engine with weaker ERS would have been the right path. You can't do heat regeneration really without the turbocharged effectively.

[pdac]

F1 (for me, at least) was always about innovation. It should allow designers to come up with innovative ideas, engineers to come up with innovative solutions and everyone to have the resources and testing time to perfect them. Sadly, for many reasons, innovation in F1 is restricted.

 

So should F1 run the current PU's or something different? It depends what areas you feel they should compromise and restrict. I don't know the answer.

[OO7]

I think F1 could use NA engines and still be cutting edge.  A 3 litre V12, with VVT, direct injection and rotary valves could be very cutting edge, particularly the rotary valves.

[FPV GTHO]

The 4 current manufacturers have 4 different turbo/MGU-H setups, I think that counts as innovative.

[AustinF1]

I think F1 could use NA engines and still be cutting edge.  A 3 litre V12, with VVT, direct injection and rotary valves could be very cutting edge, particularly the rotary valves.

This. Exactly. Who's to say the next big breakthrough isn't in the way ICE's work? 

[king_crud]

Watch Renault 3.5, 3.5l engines and the cars look good

 

http://www.worldseri...4-.html?lang=fr

[MattPete]

"Would F1 be better off running 3-3.5L V6 normally aspirated engines?"

 

Yes, but F1 would also be better off running 2.2L turbocharged V6s...

[Jordan44]

No. It's the turbo hybrid part that is making it attractive for the likes of Mercedes, Honda, and potentially Audi. Normally aspirated engines are a thing of the past.

Edited by J0rd4n, 19 September 2015 - 11:49.

[Afterburner]

I don't see it as abrupt. It was announced in 2011 and delayed. Everyone knew it was coming. And having listened to many hours of V10s and V8s, and not being able to listen to my friends - or even hear the tens of thousands of other people at a GP, I am unlikely to miss them.

Oh of course they were phenomenal to listen to. Actually frightening when they downshift as they head towards you. They seem to be punching the ground.

But that quickly got old for me.

Well, for those of us who barely manage to afford an F1 race once every five years, it was pretty special. I guess it's only right that they changed the rules for people who can afford to listen to the cars for 'hours' so that they can better hear their friends.

[nickyvida]

I can see why you might go for the energy recovery route first, but a lot of the new stuff is tied in with the turbo. But I don't see why having a massive and new NA V6 would be any advantage unless it was a very basic and heavily restricted design. A modern 3.5 l engine would be very powerful on its own. That's what was used from 1987-1994 and they were downsized to 3 l for 1995.

 

The 3.5L  RA engine of the Honda powered produced about 675hp from its V12.. i believe it could probably be what a modern 3.5L V6 could produce, or more in that essence without being too overtly powered. Even if it were, the engine could be fitted with a restrictor in that regards, leaving the way for the MGU system to reduce the deficit on current F1 cars.

[nickyvida]

The total power unit HP was intended to be the same as the old V8's pre KERS, which was 760hp roughly. Going to a larger NA engine would never have been on the cards. If they could keep the same revs (unlikely with such heavy pistons) a 3.5 V6 could have produced 1100hp if they retained the same specific output.

I think if they wanted to make a smaller step, the earlier suggestion of the smaller turbocharged engine with weaker ERS would have been the right path. You can't do heat regeneration really without the turbocharged effectively.

 

 

1100hp? i kinda doubt it could produce that much unless they really went all out like direct injection, valve timing, running on really high compression ratio.. and the list goes on. Should be 600-700 is my guess.

 

What i would prefer would be a 6-700 hp air restricted 3.5L V6 with the MGU making up the difference.

[Fastcake]

"Would F1 be better off running 3-3.5L V6 normally aspirated engines?"

Yes, but F1 would also be better off running 2.2L turbocharged V6s...

What exactly would that extra 0.6L capacity do to make F1 any better off?

[4Wheeldrift]

Well, for those of us who barely manage to afford an F1 race once every five years, it was pretty special. I guess it's only right that they changed the rules for people who can afford to listen to the cars for 'hours' so that they can better hear their friends.

 

Well if you want to get all sniffy I could say "why should they keep the rules the same for people who only go to a grand prix every five years?"

 

It's up to you what you go for.  And, even if you only go once in your life you will be listening to F1 engines for 7 hours or so (assuming you go for a race weekend).

 

 

Now they used to sound fantastic.  But they also were the only sounds you could hear. 

 

OK so I've been to a few GP., and for me the experience of watching the 2010 decider was actually diminished by it being a solo experience for me and however many thousand other people where in the stand the stand with me.  That's the point i am making. 

 

This constant moaning about the sound is like people going to a rock concert and moaning about the light show.  

[nickyvida]

Its more than you think. Kinda like having queen(NA) on stage and then getting justin bieber(turbo) a few years later.Kinda kills almost everything when the sound is what engages audiences

Edited by nickyvida, 19 September 2015 - 12:39.

[Afterburner]

Well if you want to get all sniffy I could say "why should they keep the rules the same for people who only go to a grand prix every five years?"

It's up to you what you go for. And, even if you only go once in your life you will be listening to F1 engines for 7 hours or so (assuming you go for a race weekend).


Now they used to sound fantastic. But they also were the only sounds you could hear.

OK so I've been to a few GP., and for me the experience of watching the 2010 decider was actually diminished by it being a solo experience for me and however many thousand other people where in the stand the stand with me. That's the point i am making.

This constant moaning about the sound is like people going to a rock concert and moaning about the light show.

Wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your point... but based on my experience at races I just think trying to have a conversation at any race track is an exercise in futility anyhow. To each their own, though. Attending a bunch of races is something of which to be proud.

Oh, and how'd you know I'm totally the type that's into light shows at concerts?

Edited by Afterburner, 19 September 2015 - 12:43.

[SealTheDiffuser]

Its more than you think. Kinda like having queen(NA) on stage and then getting justin bieber(turbo) a few years later.Kinda kills almost everything when the sound is what engages audiences

Rhubarb.

[FPV GTHO]

1100hp? i kinda doubt it could produce that much unless they really went all out like direct injection, valve timing, running on really high compression ratio.. and the list goes on. Should be 600-700 is my guess.

 

What i would prefer would be a 6-700 hp air restricted 3.5L V6 with the MGU making up the difference.

As i said, if they kept the same revs. So compared to a 760hp 2.4L engine, the 3.5L engine should be capable of 1100hp. 

Dumbing them down to only produce 600-700hp seems like a move a spec series would take, and why would F1 go that path on a new engine when it would be a backwards step in possibly every direction over the 2.4L V8? The only possible benefit i can imagine is engine cost, but the teams were already somewhat happy with that and it would still have to be offset against new engine development. 

I'm sure there must have been a good reason they chose to downsize from V10's to V8's instead of restrict them for 2006, excluding the Minardi/Toro Rosso Cosworth V10