Do you think Cowell is trolling the rest of the paddock here?
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/122770
Posted 12 February 2016 - 10:10
Do you think Cowell is trolling the rest of the paddock here?
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/122770
Advertisement
Posted 12 February 2016 - 10:16
Do you think Cowell is trolling the rest of the paddock here?
It has it's own thread
"Easier for new manufacturers to enter" - Cowell
Posted 12 February 2016 - 22:08
Posted 12 February 2016 - 22:15
Posted 12 February 2016 - 22:33
Edited by oetzi, 12 February 2016 - 22:33.
Posted 12 February 2016 - 22:55
Maybe you didn't read the OP:
He may be talking only on Mercedes' F1 engine experience, as at the height of the turbo era in the '80s the engines were producing more power than he claims - certainly in qualifying, possibly in the race.
Posted 13 February 2016 - 14:03
No F1 team now would be prepared to spend that much time trawling through breakers yards and pissing on stuff.
You living in the past, boy.
Those are just myths, they newer actually did that. The Formula 1 engines were built on new blocks, machined for weight reduction (these engines were still quite heavy at about 170 kg). They were also built on a rather low budget, as it wasn't purpose designed for F1 from a clean sheet of paper like the engines from for instance TAG or Honda. This was probably an important reason it's success was limited to the earlier years of the turbo-era, and particularly around the time they switched from aviation gasoline to toluene based racing fuels which allowed this engine to run very high boost pressures, especially in qualifying. With the later boost restrictions and fuel consumption limits they ran into trouble, with the purpose designed engines being able to run at higher speeds to compensate for the lack of boost.
But in race trim the BMW engine wasn't all that powerful, with about 850-900 hp, while others had as much as 1000 hp. So the current engines are quite powerful even compared to these engines, the "qualification specials" excluded.
Posted 13 February 2016 - 14:22
As far as I'm told - the BMW the blocks were defiantly "seasoned" in various ways as they were "regular" cast iron..... although the urination thing is a myth. I mean - you must have some pretty strong piss to change/relax the characteristics of a cast iron engine block!
Modern CGI has defiantly changed the game though. That's a very interesting technology. Full-circle if you like.
OEMs are defo going down that route.
Advertisement
Posted 13 February 2016 - 19:42
Spoil everyone's fun, why don't youThose are just myths, they newer actually did that. The Formula 1 engines were built on new blocks, machined for weight reduction (these engines were still quite heavy at about 170 kg). They were also built on a rather low budget, as it wasn't purpose designed for F1 from a clean sheet of paper like the engines from for instance TAG or Honda. This was probably an important reason it's success was limited to the earlier years of the turbo-era, and particularly around the time they switched from aviation gasoline to toluene based racing fuels which allowed this engine to run very high boost pressures, especially in qualifying. With the later boost restrictions and fuel consumption limits they ran into trouble, with the purpose designed engines being able to run at higher speeds to compensate for the lack of boost.
But in race trim the BMW engine wasn't all that powerful, with about 850-900 hp, while others had as much as 1000 hp. So the current engines are quite powerful even compared to these engines, the "qualification specials" excluded.
Posted 13 February 2016 - 19:44
You shouldn't go home so early...the urination thing is a myth. I mean - you must have some pretty strong piss to change/relax the characteristics of a cast iron engine block!
Posted 13 February 2016 - 22:09
As far as I'm told - the BMW the blocks were defiantly "seasoned" in various ways as they were "regular" cast iron..... although the urination thing is a myth. I mean - you must have some pretty strong piss to change/relax the characteristics of a cast iron engine block!
Modern CGI has defiantly changed the game though. That's a very interesting technology. Full-circle if you like.
OEMs are defo going down that route.
Probably nothing more than a stress relieving heat treatment prior to machining, as have been done with other grey cast iron engine blocks for racing purposes.
Ulrich Baretsky of Audi Motorsport worked on BMW's Formula 1 engines in the early 1980's and rolls his eyes at the suggestion: 'We kept being asked this' he recalls, 'and it wasn't true. But Paul Rosche became curious, so we tried it.' They built up an engine around an old road car block and tested it on the dyno to see what would happen. 'It didn't even get warm before it blew up,' recalls Baretzky.
Other engines with iron blocks during that time like the Honda and the Ferrari V6 engines used nodular iron instead of grey iron, which is actually much stronger than compacted graphite iron. Nodular iron have a few advantaged to it however, and Ferrari F50 is probably the only road car with such an engine block. Compacted graphite iron is sort of a compromise between nodular and grey iron with properties somewhere in the middle.
Posted 13 February 2016 - 23:31
Posted 14 February 2016 - 05:57
Develop the V10s at the same rate as these bloody hybrids and lets see who will be more powerful.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 05:57
So ... modern F1 cars are faster, more powerful, more reliable, tackle corners better, are technologically advanced and use less fuel.
So ... what?
They still look like they were designed by a committee, are boring to listen to and about as inspiring as beige wallpaper to watch on track.
Excellent post.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 06:12
Develop the V10s at the same rate as these bloody hybrids and lets see who will be more powerful.
Well, they were.....
Actually, they had more open development.
To be fair, either the V6T should have the same fuel flow rate as the V10s (194kg/h according to Cowell), or the V10 the same fuel flow rate as the V6T (100kg/h). Then we would see which is more powerful.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 08:34
Well, they were.....
Actually, they had more open development.
To be fair, either the V6T should have the same fuel flow rate as the V10s (194kg/h according to Cowell), or the V10 the same fuel flow rate as the V6T (100kg/h). Then we would see which is more powerful.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 10:25
So ... modern F1 cars are faster
Faster than what?
Brazil 2015: 1 hour 31 minutes 09.090 seconds (71 laps, 305.909 km) Brazil 2004: 1 hour 28 minutes 01.451 seconds (71 laps, 305.909 km) - changeable conditions Difference 2004 and 2015: over three minutes. Japan 2015: 1 hour 28 minutes 06.508 seconds (53 laps, 307.471 km) Japan 2004: 1 hour 24 minutes 26.985 seconds (53 laps, 307.573 km) Difference 2004 and 2015: about four minutes. Italy 2015: 1 hour 18 minutes 00.688 seconds (53 laps, 306.720 km) Italy 2004: 1 hour 15 minutes 18.448 seconds (53 laps, 306.720 km) - changeable conditions Italy 2003: 1 hour 14 minutes 19.838 seconds (53 laps, 306.720 km) - fastest F1 race ever Difference 2003 and 2015: about four minutes. Canada 2015: 1 hour 31 minutes 53.145 seconds (70 laps, 305.270 km) Canada 2004: 1 hour 28 minutes 24.803 seconds (70 laps, 305.270 km) Difference 2004 and 2015: over three minutes. Malaysia 2014: 1 hour 40 minutes 25.974 seconds (56 laps, 310.408 km) - rained out qualifying Malaysia 2004: 1 hour 31 minutes 07.490 seconds (56 laps, 310.408 km) - changeable conditions Difference 2004 and 2014: over nine minutes.
Edited by Nonesuch, 14 February 2016 - 10:26.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 10:49
Faster than what?Brazil 2015: 1 hour 31 minutes 09.090 seconds (71 laps, 305.909 km) Brazil 2004: 1 hour 28 minutes 01.451 seconds (71 laps, 305.909 km) - changeable conditions Difference 2004 and 2015: over three minutes. Japan 2015: 1 hour 28 minutes 06.508 seconds (53 laps, 307.471 km) Japan 2004: 1 hour 24 minutes 26.985 seconds (53 laps, 307.573 km) Difference 2004 and 2015: about four minutes. Italy 2015: 1 hour 18 minutes 00.688 seconds (53 laps, 306.720 km) Italy 2004: 1 hour 15 minutes 18.448 seconds (53 laps, 306.720 km) - changeable conditions Italy 2003: 1 hour 14 minutes 19.838 seconds (53 laps, 306.720 km) - fastest F1 race ever Difference 2003 and 2015: about four minutes. Canada 2015: 1 hour 31 minutes 53.145 seconds (70 laps, 305.270 km) Canada 2004: 1 hour 28 minutes 24.803 seconds (70 laps, 305.270 km) Difference 2004 and 2015: over three minutes. Malaysia 2014: 1 hour 40 minutes 25.974 seconds (56 laps, 310.408 km) - rained out qualifying Malaysia 2004: 1 hour 31 minutes 07.490 seconds (56 laps, 310.408 km) - changeable conditions Difference 2004 and 2014: over nine minutes.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 11:16
I think he is being quoted out of context. I think he mean based on fuel limit they are most powerful/efficient
Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:02
Well, they were.....
Actually, they had more open development.
To be fair, either the V6T should have the same fuel flow rate as the V10s (194kg/h according to Cowell), or the V10 the same fuel flow rate as the V6T (100kg/h). Then we would see which is more powerful.
I'm guessing that would be the V10, if you're looking at ICE only. If you're really going for an apples to apples comparison and apply the same fuel flow to each, then it's only fair to apply the same to each in terms of ERS (ie apply it to neither or to both).
I wonder what would be more powerful given the same development & fuel flow limit: a V6T with MGU-H&K or a V10 with MGU-H&K.
Edited by AustinF1, 14 February 2016 - 12:06.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:12
Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:28
I'm guessing that would be the V10, if you're looking at ICE only. If you're really going for an apples to apples comparison and apply the same fuel flow to each, then it's only fair to apply the same to each in terms of ERS (ie apply it to neither or to both).
I wonder what would be more powerful given the same development & fuel flow limit: a V6T with MGU-H&K or a V10 with MGU-H&K.
The V6T by the proverbial country mile.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:30
This. Remove the fuel flow limit, increase the rev limiter and mandate a shorter final drive, and all the complaints will be drowned out. (Pun intended).
Removing the fuel flow limit won't necessarily mean a rise in rpm, unless you restrict something else, such as boost.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:38
Well the last time there was a dual engine formula, there were 1.5L turbo engines and 3.5l NA engines. Back then the turbos were still more favourable and turbo technology has advanced alot more than basic combustion tech. So I would think a 1.6 turbo V6 would quite easily make more power than a 3L V10
Exactly.
The turbos had to run 40kg heavier and had less fuel (150l vs 220l, IIRC, which would probably be why they were 40kg heavier - to have the same starting weight).
And they dominated the season.
In 16 races the turbos:
Won 16 races (McLaren 15, Ferrari 1)
Had 37 podiums out of 48 (McLaren 25, Ferrari 8, Lotus 3, Arrows 1)
Had 62 points finishes out of 96 (McLaren 27, Ferrari 17, Arrows 10, Lotus 8)
Edited by Wuzak, 14 February 2016 - 13:08.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:41
Develop the V10s at the same rate as these bloody hybrids and lets see who will be more powerful.
Don't ban the 80ies turbos and there never are any V10s
Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:42
I think he said that it's the most powerful engine Mercedes has ever produced and frankly speak even though the BMW might have had more power for qualifying .. these engines with the help of the electric motor might have more torque than any other engine ever used in F1.
Edited by MJ999, 14 February 2016 - 17:28.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 13:19
Removing the fuel flow limit won't necessarily mean a rise in rpm, unless you restrict something else, such as boost.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 16:10
I think he is being quoted out of context. I think he mean based on fuel limit they are most powerful/efficient
Advertisement
Posted 14 February 2016 - 16:38
The others can and will catch up...No. He was using his spin doctor hat. Just lying through his teeth to justify holding on to his advantage.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 16:46
Develop the V10s at the same rate as these bloody hybrids and lets see who will be more powerful.
The bloody v10s wouldn't stand a chance.Not even close.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 17:12
The bloody v10s wouldn't stand a chance.Not even close.
if the v10 can run with 2004 minimum weight (-100kg) then i wouldnt be so sure, v6t will be faster. not at all!!
100kg less should make v10 much faster in qualifying, and the 100kg lighter chassis would negate the extra fuel carried by the v10 at race start,
Posted 14 February 2016 - 17:34
Honda's V10 was almost 1000hp before the V8 came in, 950hp was well achievable.
Not was almost, was. Their Suzuka Special had just over 1000HP.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 18:19
if the v10 can run with 2004 minimum weight (-100kg) then i wouldnt be so sure, v6t will be faster. not at all!!
100kg less should make v10 much faster in qualifying, and the 100kg lighter chassis would negate the extra fuel carried by the v10 at race start,
You're comparing apples to oranges. If we just compare engine to power unit there is no competition.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 19:58
if the v10 can run with 2004 minimum weight (-100kg) then i wouldnt be so sure, v6t will be faster. not at all!!
100kg less should make v10 much faster in qualifying, and the 100kg lighter chassis would negate the extra fuel carried by the v10 at race start,
You make it read as if all of those 100 extra kgs are the result of the hybrid stuff on the car.
But if my memory serves me well, there were some weight increases for safety and practical purposes made as well since 2004. To make it more fair, I think your beloved 2004 V10 should have its weight increased with the same steps and addings done since 2004 because of these reasons to get at least the chassis more equal weight-wise and speed differences thus being because of differences in power unit primarliy.
But I wrote the rules above before I all of a sudden dawned onto me that the 2004 V10 never ever ran a race without at least one, if not two pits stops for refueling. So they first have to maek a V10 engined car with a large enough fuel tank to go the entire distance. And then the car will automatically become more heavy. And how much longer and thus less agile in handling?
I think you could be right with stating the V10 would be faster in qualifying trim. But over race distances I am not that sure yet.
Henri
Edited by Henri Greuter, 14 February 2016 - 19:59.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 20:02
I don't disagree, I was merely alluding to the 'pro-modern F1' lobby and its constant attempts to convince fans that modern F1 is faster, better and generally so much more amazing than ever ... which it isn't.
Where is this 'pro-modern F1-lobby' and where are these 'constant attempts to convince fans etc...'? This 'constant' is really a figment of your imagination. What I do see is a constant grumbling, by both designers, drivers and F1-experts (in short: everyone not having a Mercedes-engine) that everything about F1 is crap nowadays.
Posted 18 February 2016 - 08:44
Do you think Cowell is trolling the rest of the paddock here?
drawing a baited fishing line? no I don't think he is