444 replies to this topic

[cheapracer]

V6 1.6 15,000 rpm engines for F1 - Yay! (well I would have prefered V8 N/A's still ...)

You girly wimpy pansies who were all for 4 cylinder "oh we want the same engine as whats in my wifes shopping basket" - nah nah nah nah nah nah - Oh today is a good day ...

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/92664


I'm adding Just Me Again's post from lower down as it's quite surprising and part of the calculation, please read the link ...

Hi
Just read this http://www.pitpass.c...ted-in-tomorrow apperently the circuits will go to Indycar if the engines don't sound correct. eg: run to 18000rpm

Bjørn

Edited by cheapracer, 27 June 2011 - 03:31.

[gruntguru]

That would be good for the spectacle - the sounds in particular, but they will need to lift the fuel flow rates or teams won't be using the 15,000.

[malbear]

V6 1.6 15,000 rpm engines for F1 - Yay!

You girly wimpy pansies who were all for 4 cylinder "oh we want the same engine as whats in my wifes shopping basket" - nah nah nah nah nah nah - Oh today is a good day ...

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/92664

Mind you still not the engine I would have chosen.

I would have chosen a V4 with 3 cranks and 8 pistons ,16 sparkplugs 8 injectors.
V6 are a bitch to balance.
malbeare

[cheapracer]

V6's are a bitch to balance.

Put the piece of 2 x 4 under the sump an an angle as you are probably getting the sump plug caught up and that's why it keeps falling over.

Obviously the V6 will suit the chassis mounting and general layout allowing the basic current V8 chassis to be used etc.

Commonly spewed out and once again: "It's important that we get lower costs in F1 ...."

Well gee, try changing the whole structure of F1 idiot ..... but as I have said before raking off a dangerous 10% of 10 million into your pocket isn't even close to raking a safe 5% of 100 million.

Edited by cheapracer, 26 June 2011 - 13:39.

[Tony Matthews]

Put the piece of 2 x 4 under the sump an an angle as you are probably getting the sump plug caught up and that's why it keeps falling over.

[primer]

Is this a turbo engine, too? What stupidity in that case. Why would anyone chase high RPMs when you have boost, that is like having the worst of both worlds Hannah Montana is unimpressed.

Edited by primer, 26 June 2011 - 14:14.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Because boost will be limited?

CART engines were high revving turbo V6s, though 2.5ish liters I think.

[Tony Matthews]

CART engines were high revving turbo V6s, though 2.5ish liters I think.

? V8s surely. Unless we are talking about engines later than the ones I am familiar with. Engines like the Cosworth XB (?) were certainly not regarded as turbo-charged in the strict sense, as boost was so low.

[primer]

Ya they shouldn't restrict the boost so much, then. Personally I would've liked an NA engine, but all this is just a sideshow. The engines will ultimately get 'equalized' into irrelevance like the present day V8s anyway.

[Ross Stonefeld]

? V8s surely. Unless we are talking about engines later than the ones I am familiar with. Engines like the Cosworth XB (?) were certainly not regarded as turbo-charged in the strict sense, as boost was so low.

Yeah sorry V8s, I think maybe the Menards/Buick was the V6.


My point is that revs and turbos aren't mutually exclusive. And I'm more than happy to turn down the noise in exchange for a better series. My only concern is not enough power for the specs they've been talking about.

[MatsNorway]

My only concern is not enough power for the specs they've been talking about.

Same here. But i think and hope that FIA will look at battery technology in 2012-2013.
And if the batteries++ isn`t capable enough by then, they will then most likely rise the boost pressure a bit to adjust to that.

Glad they rised the RPM limit. Even if they doesn`t go all they way up to it. Its a bit of a prinsiple on my part.

We could possibly see less cars on the RPM limit when they try to pass in 2014. I like that.

[Tony Matthews]

Yeah sorry V8s, I think maybe the Menards/Buick was the V6.


My point is that revs and turbos aren't mutually exclusive.

The V6s were 3.4 litre, like the Mercedes /Ilmor V8 pushrod. As you know, pneumatic valve springs were banned, but they still managed, with the use of, I seem to remember, a Japanese-developed steel, 15,000 RPM with normal valvesprings - and, of course, light turbocharging.

[cheapracer]

My only concern is not enough power for the specs they've been talking about.

I think your right - too much traction, downforce and weight for the power. They will just drive around on rails to the outside observer.

15,000 RPM with normal valvesprings

Valve springs won't be an issue at 15K for a 260cc cylinder - stock standard mass production 250 dirt bikes redline at 13 to 14K now.

[24gerrard]

Ferrari is slowly killing F1, I think this will slowly become apparant.
They have prevented Audi coming in and seriously limited the development of efficient powertrains.

The bottom line will be, which dies first Ferrari or F1.
When the inevitable happens, probably when Bernie shuffles off this mortal coil and criminals like Briatorre and Murdoch step in to share out the body bits, then the others like McLaren, Merc and Renault will all find other sensible things to do.

Ferrari will of course go more into sports cars and other series when F1 is dead but they should know by now that they will not be able to compete in formula' based on fuel efficiency.

[Tony Matthews]

Valve springs won't be an issue at 15K for a 260cc cylinder - stock standard mass production 250 dirt bikes redline at 13 to 14K now.

Fifteen K doesn't seem much anymore, but at the time it was a leap of about 3K over normal. Progress, eh! Doncha just love it?

[just me again]

Hi
Just read this http://www.pitpass.c...ted-in-tomorrow apperently the circuits will go to Indycar if the engines don't sound correct. eg: run to 18000rpm

Bjørn

[Tony Matthews]

Fascinating! Bring it on! Just a shame it didn't happen when CART was at its peak with terrific-looking cars and several constructors/manufacturers involved...

[MatsNorway]

haha it never stops does it?

[24gerrard]

Great this is fantastic news.
F1 can return to its source in Europe where it belongs and the gas guzzlers in Australia can get in bed with Murdoch in his attempt to dominate the world media.
Nobody in Europe should give a damn about this, let the criminals have CART and all the traitor circuits.
The yanks will love it for a while, at least until they find out how much they will have to pay in taxes to Murdoch etc.
What ever else CART is it will never be F1. Suitable for the back end of the grid plus Ferrari nothing much else.
I am sure Bernie will make loadsa money out of Murdoch for his retirement out of this.
Then a new F1 can be started by proper fans with common sense for the future.
Great so F1 will be electric much sooner, fantastic. Just think of all that huge new sponsorship, bring it on.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Two main issues...

Adrian Newey said they were going to 4s because Audi said they'd come in, but then changed their mind. Before the proposed engine spec had any other changes. Audi jumped looooong before they were pushed.

What's the logic of dumping medium-rev turbo singleseaters for another series with medium-rev turbo singleseaters but none of the prestige?

[24gerrard]

Two main issues...

Adrian Newey said they were going to 4s because Audi said they'd come in, but then changed their mind. Before the proposed engine spec had any other changes. Audi jumped looooong before they were pushed.

What's the logic of dumping medium-rev turbo singleseaters for another series with medium-rev turbo singleseaters but none of the prestige?

Audi would not become involved with a race series which is now so obviously controlled by Ferrari and those manipulating motor heads for the sake of Murdoch.
Why should they, they know Ferrari is only history now, just like all the other gas guzzling supercar names.
A marketing name slowly loseing its credibility in the face of modern 'sensible' technology.
Everyone with any sense understands that fossil fuels for cars are NOT the future.

I completely agree with one medium rev turbo series for another. Pathetic lip service to motor heads with no brains.
IT SHOULD BE A TECHNOLOGY FORMULA THAT REFLECTS THE LATEST THINGS IN VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT.
Not ancient history and the internal combustion CO2 pollution creator but CLEAN electric energy with energy recovery and conservation.

[TF110]

You're spewing nonsense. No one said anything about having a ban on innovation. That's the FIA killing that. They can make 900hp from 3 liters or less, and have it sound like true F1 cars. The carbon footprint is nothing for the cars. This is what you don't get. This 'green' crap is moot when you're racing. If they really wanted 'green' they'd stop charting planes to fly the cars and such to the next race. Complain about that. One car from one person probably emits more than every car on the grid for 19 races a year. That's pathetic to think they should limit F1 cars because of fuel economy. Not even Nascar does this!

[Wuzak]

Audi would not become involved with a race series which is now so obviously controlled by Ferrari and those manipulating motor heads for the sake of Murdoch.
Why should they, they know Ferrari is only history now, just like all the other gas guzzling supercar names.

What's Murdoch got to do with it? He is trying to buy the commercial rights lease, but has no say in it.

Audi said they would come into F1 if there was a 4 cylinder turbo engine. That came about last December and then Audi said they wouldn't bother.

[Wuzak]

Ferrari is slowly killing F1, I think this will slowly become apparant.
They have prevented Audi coming in and seriously limited the development of efficient powertrains.

How have they prevented Audi from coming in? Especially since Audi said that they are not coming in.

How is the V6 limiting the development of efficient power trains?

[cheapracer]

How have they prevented Audi from coming in? Especially since Audi said that they are not coming in.

How is the V6 limiting the development of efficient power trains?

Well that's logical actually ie; 4 cyl turbos = Audi whereas V6 = Ferrari, it was always going to be one or the other.

Doesn't, opposite in fact - any limited engine formula makes them look even harder at the drive train for gains.

I hope they lower weight and narrow the rear tyres some or at least a rock hard, 2 race compound - "here's ya 6 tyres guys, see ya in 2 races time".

Edited by cheapracer, 27 June 2011 - 03:00.

[cheapracer]

Hi
Just read this http://www.pitpass.c...ted-in-tomorrow apperently the circuits will go to Indycar if the engines don't sound correct. eg: run to 18000rpm

Bjørn

Wow, surprising - I just read that and added it to the topic post, thanks Bjorn

I think they are wrong to want just "18000 rpm" there are other choices but they are right to steer forcefully away from the small turbo sound (10000 rpm long stroke (relative) 4.0 V8's would be horniest!).

[Wuzak]

Well that's logical actually ie; 4 cyl turbos = Audi whereas V6 = Ferrari, it was always going to be one or the other.

The 4 cylinder formula was there, but Audi still didn't want to join. And I'm sure Audi will have a V6 turbo in their range to go with their I4 turbo and probably a V8 turbo.

[Ross Stonefeld]

You're spewing nonsense. No one said anything about having a ban on innovation. That's the FIA killing that. They can make 900hp from 3 liters or less, and have it sound like true F1 cars. The carbon footprint is nothing for the cars. This is what you don't get. This 'green' crap is moot when you're racing. If they really wanted 'green' they'd stop charting planes to fly the cars and such to the next race. Complain about that. One car from one person probably emits more than every car on the grid for 19 races a year. That's pathetic to think they should limit F1 cars because of fuel economy. Not even Nascar does this!

NASCAR makes no efforts to be modern, that's the entire USP.

And while the air travel argument is mathematically sound, it doesn't work at a PR level. No one watches race cars and thinks about the transport impact. Motorsport will always have a link to environmental issues that figure skating won't.

[Lee Nicolle]

NASCAR makes no efforts to be modern, that's the entire USP.

And while the air travel argument is mathematically sound, it doesn't work at a PR level. No one watches race cars and thinks about the transport impact. Motorsport will always have a link to environmental issues that figure skating won't.

Figure skaters travel on aeroplanes too, along with their entourages. The amount of fuel used by organisers and officials for a GP far exceeds what the racecars use.
And if they come up with 4 cyl turbos the crowds and TV viewers will disapear fairly rapidly.
As for electric cars, PLEASE it is MOTOR racing. If you want electric car racing stage the Gopher GP with 26 over 65 drivers and then watch out!! In the carpark at the local mall.

[24gerrard]

You're spewing nonsense. No one said anything about having a ban on innovation. That's the FIA killing that. They can make 900hp from 3 liters or less, and have it sound like true F1 cars. The carbon footprint is nothing for the cars. This is what you don't get. This 'green' crap is moot when you're racing. If they really wanted 'green' they'd stop charting planes to fly the cars and such to the next race. Complain about that. One car from one person probably emits more than every car on the grid for 19 races a year. That's pathetic to think they should limit F1 cars because of fuel economy. Not even Nascar does this!

Billions of people did and are still complaining about aviation fuel.
That is why bio fuel is being fazed in, it is a high proportion in American aviation fuel already.
So the 'green' crap is not moot as you state, ignorance is bliss of course.

There has been no 'inovation' in the mechanical side of F1 for decades, just the same technology done to death.
That is why the teams have to play so much with model aeroplane ideas, sells it to the school boys.

NASCAR is ancient history and has no place in this discusion, it originates from the fossil fuel exploiters lobby.

[24gerrard]

What's Murdoch got to do with it? He is trying to buy the commercial rights lease, but has no say in it.

Audi said they would come into F1 if there was a 4 cylinder turbo engine. That came about last December and then Audi said they wouldn't bother.

Why do you think the Australian circuit owners are coming on so strong.
Wake up please.

[24gerrard]

The 4 cylinder formula was there, but Audi still didn't want to join. And I'm sure Audi will have a V6 turbo in their range to go with their I4 turbo and probably a V8 turbo.

Audi knew that Ferrari would get their way in F1, they always do and Audi is a far more responsible car manufacturer for the future.
That should now be obvious.
The V6 is neither one thing or the other and will be the first major nail in F1s coffin.
It will also reduce the price when Murdoch slithers in to eat it up.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Figure skaters travel on aeroplanes too, along with their entourages. The amount of fuel used by organisers and officials for a GP far exceeds what the racecars use.
And if they come up with 4 cyl turbos the crowds and TV viewers will disapear fairly rapidly.
As for electric cars, PLEASE it is MOTOR racing. If you want electric car racing stage the Gopher GP with 26 over 65 drivers and then watch out!! In the carpark at the local mall.

You didn't read what I wrote. It's an issue of perception vs reality. Very few people watching a sporting event are calculating the environmental impact of the logistics of the event, they are going based on what they see before them. Cars are seen to be pollution creators, and rightly so. But that gives them an advantage. Going the green route can get them more press, more sponsorship, more interest from car manufacturers, and done right even government funding. Something a football team will almost never qualify for.

Very few people watch F1 for the technology. They enjoy the image of technology but most of them have no idea what's going on. The majority of fans are 'casual viewers'. They want to see their driver/team win, regardless of the engine spec.

[24gerrard]

Figure skaters travel on aeroplanes too, along with their entourages. The amount of fuel used by organisers and officials for a GP far exceeds what the racecars use.
And if they come up with 4 cyl turbos the crowds and TV viewers will disapear fairly rapidly.
As for electric cars, PLEASE it is MOTOR racing. If you want electric car racing stage the Gopher GP with 26 over 65 drivers and then watch out!! In the carpark at the local mall.

I suggest you take a break Nicole and study up on electric racing.
At present you do not have the faintest idea.
It comes from living in the 19th and 20th centuries and wearing blinkers forced on you by those who 'own' you.

There already, International, European and American electric motor cycle series, that will soon be faster than the ic bikes.
Why dont you check it out before you get labeled as a dinosaur.
The fossil lobby and blinkered motor heads are franticaly preventing any meaningful media coverage at present.
They wont hold it off for much longer.

[gruntguru]

You're spewing nonsense. No one said anything about having a ban on innovation. That's the FIA killing that. They can make 900hp from 3 liters or less, and have it sound like true F1 cars. The carbon footprint is nothing for the cars. This is what you don't get. This 'green' crap is moot when you're racing. If they really wanted 'green' they'd stop charting planes to fly the cars and such to the next race. Complain about that. One car from one person probably emits more than every car on the grid for 19 races a year. That's pathetic to think they should limit F1 cars because of fuel economy. Not even Nascar does this!

You're missing the point. The purpose of an "efficiency formula" is to stimulate innovation. Not saying it will happen but just say F1 spawned an enhancement that improved the efficiency of every new car by 1%. The fuel saved would run a lot more jumbo's than the F1 circus needs.

[24gerrard]

You didn't read what I wrote. It's an issue of perception vs reality. Very few people watching a sporting event are calculating the environmental impact of the logistics of the event, they are going based on what they see before them. Cars are seen to be pollution creators, and rightly so. But that gives them an advantage. Going the green route can get them more press, more sponsorship, more interest from car manufacturers, and done right even government funding. Something a football team will almost never qualify for.

Very few people watch F1 for the technology. They enjoy the image of technology but most of them have no idea what's going on. The majority of fans are 'casual viewers'. They want to see their driver/team win, regardless of the engine spec.

Exactly correct and a very sensible post based on fact.
If F1 is to continue, it needs to change its tune NOW, 2014 and just lip service will KILL it.

[Ross Stonefeld]

It is effectively changing now. Rules wise 2014 is soon. They weren't going to have an all new spec by 2012.

[Wuzak]

Audi knew that Ferrari would get their way in F1, they always do and Audi is a far more responsible car manufacturer for the future.
That should now be obvious.
The V6 is neither one thing or the other and will be the first major nail in F1s coffin.
It will also reduce the price when Murdoch slithers in to eat it up.

If Audi had committed to the I4 formula then it would have been a lot harder to get it changed.

But Audi would not commit, and have said they will never join F1.

Ferrari makes a few thousand cars a year that do relatively few miles, Audi makes a lot more cars that do a lot more miles. Of course Audi has to be more active on the environmental front. Not to say that Ferrari isn't moving in that direction for the future.

[Wuzak]

Audi U-turn prompted 2013 engines rethink

“The initial decision from the engine working group was for a four-cylinder turbo to be introduced for 2013,” said Newey. “The big driver behind that was Audi. They said they would come into the sport if there was a four cylinder turbo, and that's what everyone agreed in order to get Audi in.

“They subsequently decided that no, they won't bother after all thank you very much, and we were lumbered with a four cylinder turbo.”

“You can then get into the politics of the whole thing,” he continued. “Certainly from an engineering point of view a four cylinder turbo is not a nice car to install, you've basically got to put a spaceframe around it, you can't make it a properly structural.

“A racing V6 is a much nicer engine to package. That will now be the 2014 engine.”

So, Audi participated in the EWG to get what it wanted for an entry as an engine supplier to F1, then got what they wanted only to then say that they won't join after all.

[cheapracer]

Audi knew that Ferrari would get their way in F1, they always do and Audi is a far more responsible car manufacturer for the future.
That should now be obvious.

But that statement only applies to people who give a ****, I see F1 as a motor racing competition, nothing more and have never been compelled to run out and buy the winner on Monday.

[kikiturbo2]

I really do not see the point of changing the engine rules all the time... it is not for the cost reasons for sure...

hell, make them 2.0 litre V12 with 14000 RPM limits... that should be good for all..

[24gerrard]

But that statement only applies to people who give a ****, I see F1 as a motor racing competition, nothing more and have never been compelled to run out and buy the winner on Monday.

Sorry cheapy, I respect your opinions and obvious knowledge but that comment is way off the mark.
Dont forget, I am also a card carying motor head of many years experience.

Start with the effect F1s inability to take on board modern technology for vehicles and the negative opinion of any new potential sponsors.
Ferrari is renowned as a builder of gas guzzlers and their main sponsor is a tobacco company from ancient history.
No wonder thay have done what they have.
These are the last gasps of a drowning man, in the face of an energy revolution.
F1 has to gain some guts, or someone else will start a modern race series beyond its present technical capability.

[24gerrard]

I really do not see the point of changing the engine rules all the time... it is not for the cost reasons for sure...

hell, make them 2.0 litre V12 with 14000 RPM limits... that should be good for all..

Perhaps you should just buy a computer game.
To do as you say is just doing again what has been done to death years ago.

[kikiturbo2]

the problem is that F1 doesn't know what it wants..


if it is lower cost, than they need a proven tecnology that is allready widely available.... for 30 000 USD you can have a 700 HP IC supercharged V8 that will last the whole season.. add a zero if you like for some more high tech gadgetry,.... however, the point is, that there is a LOW COST solution for engine rules..

on the other hand, if the point is new age eco friendly technology, then stop talking about low cost.... simply restrict the fuel allowance, free the engine tech completely and sit back and see what will those bright minds think up... that is the only solution.... however, in that case, no more nonsense about low cost..

[Ross Stonefeld]

That's like saying NASCAR engines are cheap because they're low tech. Competition is what makes most of the cost.

[Wuzak]

Sorry cheapy, I respect your opinions and obvious knowledge but that comment is way off the mark.
Dont forget, I am also a card carying motor head of many years experience.

Start with the effect F1s inability to take on board modern technology for vehicles and the negative opinion of any new potential sponsors.
Ferrari is renowned as a builder of gas guzzlers and their main sponsor is a tobacco company from ancient history.
No wonder thay have done what they have.
These are the last gasps of a drowning man, in the face of an energy revolution.
F1 has to gain some guts, or someone else will start a modern race series beyond its present technical capability.

So, 1.6l V6 turbos with direct injection and all the gizmos plus 120kW KERS and 4MJ (or more) storage isn't modern technology?

Ferrari is renowned as a manufacturer of sports and racing cars, classes of vehicles that are rarely considered in terms of fuel economy.

Ferrari do have some turbo engines in the pipleine for the future. They already have embraced direct injection for their road cars.


If someone else starts a new series, who will show up to run in it?

[kikiturbo2]

That's like saying NASCAR engines are cheap because they're low tech. Competition is what makes most of the cost.

no. Not low tech. What I am saying is that known quantities make for low cost. You can stick an enzo v12 in a f1 car and still have a low cost solution.

On the other hand changing the engine rules every couple of years makes for high cost as you need to develop New engines. So I am not buying this low cost bs as the move to v6 engines will be a pointless exercise... If they wanted to develop new cutting edge technologies then free the engine regs and limit fuel....

[MatsNorway]

If they wanted to develop new cutting edge technologies then free the engine regs and limit fuel....

Im kinda with you on that. DI on the current ones and free up some other things like the ban on variale cam timing. I believe that is banned. same goes for some intake dimentions.


But back to the new engines...

Wouldn`t the V6 run lean at higher revs if flow rate is only good enough for peak power at say 8000rpm? plenty of air to force in without boost limit.

Doesn`t engines get hot going to lean?

And since everyone speaks about efficency why isn`t water injection allowed? it should be even if its not better.

Edit: you could run fuel every second cycle to the pistons to sustain propper mixture. or just use the electronic throttle house to partially close at high engine revs to get more correct mix.
I guess i answered my own question...

Edited by MatsNorway, 27 June 2011 - 17:00.

[MatsNorway]

Is thermal coating allowed?

Could gain some efficiency there right?

[cheapracer]

Is thermal coating allowed?

Could gain some efficiency there right?

Yes but it has strict limits so the "coating" is very thin and doesn't end up the actual bulk of the material.

It may surprise you to learn F1 is ahead of "Slick Bob's One Stop Speed Shop".