Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 8 votes

EXCITING 1.5l V6 turbos! Or lawnmowers?


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#101 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,790 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:48

After all, hauling 20 cars, crap to build another 10, hundreds of people all around the globe so that millions of morons, me included, can whatch those said cars chasing each other around a tarmac track that's probably damaging good farm land without a clear purpose is no waste at all, it's absolute essential and efficient activity, sine qua non condition to the development of a healthy civilization.


Well yeah, but the thing is that if the engineers had a completely free hand in engine development, they would do anything to extract as much energy from the fuel as possible for propulsion, and they would not care one bit for the sound. If they could beat the other manufacturers by building an engine that happens to make not sound at all, they would.

It's nonsensical to ask for great V10/12 sound and at the same time for deregulation. The only reason we had V10s in the first place was because turbos were forbidden (and V12s because turbos were not where they needed to be yet). Demanding V10 sounds ultimately means to demand regulation.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 11 April 2013 - 05:48.


Advertisement

#102 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:42

Glad to see someone's finally got a handle on the formula we simply must have, Eformula. :up:


LOL, because hauling electric cars to do all of the above makes a huge difference, right?

Not.

#103 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:45

Well yeah, but the thing is that if the engineers had a completely free hand in engine development, they would do anything to extract as much energy from the fuel as possible for propulsion, and they would not care one bit for the sound. If they could beat the other manufacturers by building an engine that happens to make not sound at all, they would.

It's nonsensical to ask for great V10/12 sound and at the same time for deregulation. The only reason we had V10s in the first place was because turbos were forbidden (and V12s because turbos were not where they needed to be yet). Demanding V10 sounds ultimately means to demand regulation.


If engineers had a free hand I guess there would be no fuel limit. The objective then would be to be the faster, not the most fuel efficient. The shoulda woulda doesn't work here.

#104 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,467 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 11 April 2013 - 14:15

If engineers had a free hand I guess there would be no fuel limit. The objective then would be to be the faster, not the most fuel efficient. The shoulda woulda doesn't work here.


Reading between the lines I'm pretty sure he ment a free hand within the fuel limit regulation and 1.6L V6.

And if were getting to the silly point where logistics behind the scenes are being sighted as wastefull then why do we bother to do anything? All we need is water and food so everything else created by man is a waste of time surley?

Unfortunately as the car is seen as a global villan in terms of enviromental damage. Racing cars need to be seen to be trying to be more green or we will have lobbys of people trying to get it banned along with anything else that doesn't suit their lifestly choice. Because the world seems to be full of people trying to make people live to their agenda as they seem to believe they are rightious and other people should be doing what they are doing.

What the hell ever happened to live and let live?

#105 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 11 April 2013 - 14:46

If it's free one is not allowed to pick the rules he likes best.

You see, F1 is entretainment. That's it's value, that's what pays the bill. And it's charecter is not of an economy run, far from that by miles. This effort will fail. May be it's doomed, like bull races, cock fights and boxing. But I'm not willing to watch shadow boxing. Neither econoraces.


And yes, what the hell ever happened to live and let live?



#106 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,467 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 11 April 2013 - 15:35

If it's free one is not allowed to pick the rules he likes best.

You see, F1 is entretainment. That's it's value, that's what pays the bill. And it's charecter is not of an economy run, far from that by miles. This effort will fail. May be it's doomed, like bull races, cock fights and boxing. But I'm not willing to watch shadow boxing. Neither econoraces.


And yes, what the hell ever happened to live and let live?


Unfortunatley in the world we live in now anything that seems to be of excess is sited as being bad. Formula 1 will be slowly squeezed untill it can give no more.

In my opinion if they want to bring some drama back then they would be better off fixing the aero so teams arn't spending all there money on that and let them go nuts on the engine and give them mechanical grip back.

Result would be cars that are slightly slower in the high speed corners but faster in the slow speed corners and much more entertaining to watch as a result of having more power than grip.

Edited by 7MGTEsup, 11 April 2013 - 15:36.


#107 mclarensmps

mclarensmps
  • Member

  • 8,611 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 11 April 2013 - 15:43

One single Phantom II sounds more impressive than an entire grid of V12 or V10 F1 cars. But that's not the ONLY reason people are going to air shows.


FTFY!

#108 Longtimefan

Longtimefan
  • Member

  • 3,170 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 11 April 2013 - 16:44

Personally I don't think you can beat the heavenly sound of a Ford DFV :)

or a grid full of them!! Awesome stuff.


#109 Boing Ball

Boing Ball
  • Member

  • 392 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 11 April 2013 - 16:56

They've done this before ? Shows you how much I know... for some reason I though Ferrari didn't have any experience with 6 cylinder engines in F1.


Are you serious? Ferrari was one of the first (second?) teams to run a turbo charged engine in F1, and did so like most of the top teams till the end of the 1988 season. Ferrari was also the first team to win the constructors championship with a turbo charged engine. Plenty of evidence on Youtube about turbo charged Ferrari F1 cars!

Edited by Boing Ball, 11 April 2013 - 16:57.


#110 mlsnoopy

mlsnoopy
  • Member

  • 2,356 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 11 April 2013 - 17:00

I'll just leave this here.

V6 Powah


THat would destroy the Pirelis in one corner.

#111 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 5,750 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 11 April 2013 - 17:11

Are you serious? Ferrari was one of the first (second?) teams to run a turbo charged engine in F1, and did so like most of the top teams till the end of the 1988 season. Ferrari was also the first team to win the constructors championship with a turbo charged engine. Plenty of evidence on Youtube about turbo charged Ferrari F1 cars!


Second, Renault were first.

#112 vlado

vlado
  • Member

  • 3,914 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 11 April 2013 - 17:16

Are you serious? Ferrari was one of the first (second?) teams to run a turbo charged engine in F1, and did so like most of the top teams till the end of the 1988 season. Ferrari was also the first team to win the constructors championship with a turbo charged engine. Plenty of evidence on Youtube about turbo charged Ferrari F1 cars!

To lazy to look it up :blush:

they've got it all it seems

http://en.wikipedia....rari_engines#V6

but wiki says their V6 were "lesser-known" .. so I will go with that as my excuse.

So are we expecting their engine to be up to par with Merceds and Renault ?

#113 Gridfire

Gridfire
  • Member

  • 887 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 11 April 2013 - 17:21

Yes, I think nostalgia and an arbitrary preference for a lower frequency noise should drive the choices in Formula 1 development!

#114 Beamer

Beamer
  • Member

  • 3,384 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 11 April 2013 - 18:12

I'll just leave this here.

V6 Powah



Woo-Haa! Couldn't care less about the sound... Just watch that thing catapult out of the corners!

#115 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,790 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 April 2013 - 18:58

If engineers had a free hand I guess there would be no fuel limit. The objective then would be to be the faster, not the most fuel efficient. The shoulda woulda doesn't work here.


With all else being equal, every ounce of fuel you have to carry means a time penalty. The engine that is able to turn 10% of a kg of fuel into power is better than an engine that can do 9.5% (arbitrary numbers). An unregulated turbo would trash any normally aspirated engine hands down. And engineers may care about the sound in their hearts, but will choose the quicker engine over the better sounding every time. If one wants to preserve V10 sound one needs to forbid turbos.