84 replies to this topic

[F1Lurker]

Well, it seems that F1 is discussing moving to v4 turbos without the MGU-H (the electric generator attached to the exhaust).

 

How would these PU's sound? Nice tone? Loud? 

[V8 Fireworks]

 

How would these PU's sound? Nice tone? Loud? 

 

Like this

 

But with a turbo.

 

 Hopefully they decide to have the turbine on only one bank of cylinders, or use a V6 or V8, ideally V8.

 

V4s have quite an interesting sound:

 

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 03 April 2017 - 13:46.

[Victor_RO]

This is what a racing turbo V4 sounds like:

 

[V8 Fireworks]

I think the Porsche has a nice tone, but it sounds like something is missing... It's lacking the rich harmonics (or overtones) of an engine with more cylinders.

 

Anyway, it's baffling why F1 did not just replace the failed 1.6L I4 world engine proposal with a 1.6L V4 that could be used structurally for F1, in the first place.    Why the V6!?  If they choose a V4 regulation they would have just gone around in a circle back to the rule they should have chosen in the first place.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 03 April 2017 - 13:59.

[Victor_RO]

Fair warning though: I have heard the Porsche in real life, it's quite a bit quieter than you'd think. If you hear it passing a GTE Corvette or Aston Martin (thundering NA V8s with ground-level exhaust exits) it's almost drowned out. Not as much as the Audis, but you can barely hear it. Certainly not loud enough to even consider earplugs.

[Pumpkinz]

@V8 Fireworks; Beacuse Ferrari vetoed against a 4 cylinder Engine.

Edited by Pumpkinz, 03 April 2017 - 13:58.

[ArrowsLivery]

I think the Porsche has a nice tone, but it sounds like something is missing... It's lacking the rich harmonics (or overtones) of an engine with more cylinders.

 

Anyway, it's baffling why F1 did not just replace the failed 1.6L I4 world engine proposal with a 1.6L V4 that could be used structurally for F1, in the first place.    Why the V6!?  If they choose a V4 regulation they would have just gone around in a circle back to the rule they should have chosen in the first place.

 

F1's V6 sounds better than Porsche's V4 though. There are also all kinds of vibration issues with V4s, and no road car uses one either. 

[F1Lurker]

It's hard to judge but the Porsche V4 sounds even quieter than the F1 v6. Perhaps that would change if the Porsche did not use a MGU-H???

 

The MotoGP bike sounds pretty decent but not close to a v10 or v12 in terms of awesomeness.

[OO7]

What is the point of going to a V4?

[Neno]

What is the point of going to a V4?

So one day we can go V2. 

[Wuzak]

What is the point of going to a V4?

 

Porsche has one?

 

Meanwhile there are 4 manufacturers with 1.6l V6s that could be converted into conventional twin turbos (ie no MGUH).

[OO7]

So one day we can go V2. 

How is a German WW2 rocket going to help the show ..................... Fireworks don't cut it.

[EthanM]

pointless thread, Ferrari will veto 4 cylinder blocks like they did last time

[OO7]

Porsche has one?

 

Meanwhile there are 4 manufacturers with 1.6l V6s that could be converted into conventional twin turbos (ie no MGUH).

Precisely.  I don't get the need for a completely new block, unless they wanted to go the pure NA route which wouldn't fit in with their road relevance dialogue.

[chunder27]

Lol a bike V4 is a totally different design to a car one. Obviously not turbo'd and much. much higher revving as they need very little torque.

 

The bike engines are in various firing orders to try and lump the pulses together and help tyre life. But the new KTM uses even spacing as the old Honda of last year did too, a sort of screamer version.  AS did the 800 and original 900 Ducati, but it was deemed too brutal and Ducati were always trying tog et the riders to pick the easier delivery of the big bang type version. And they are far smaller capacity and fairly unrestricted on noise.

 

Thing is, an old BMW turbo 4 cylinder sounded brutal, aggressive, visceral, you could hear the power, feel the lag, see every gear change as it ran so rich the exhaust flamed every change. They sounded mechanical and were brilliant to hear though at the time I expect everyone found them boring too!

 

These modern F1 people don't get it, they just haven't got a clue!!

[SenorSjon]

I have a 800cc V4 on my motorbike. Sounds nice though. Bolt two of those together and you have a 1.6l V8. 

 

But why mandate the number of cilinders and build again? An inline 5 (Volvo T5) sounds nice as well. 

[Kalmake]

This is what a racing turbo V4 sounds like:

Not what the OP asked for. It has a GU-H.

[saudoso]

There's nothing wrong with the V6. I've had a V6 Alfa that screamed like a banshee, below 8k rpm, with silencers and all.

What's wrong is the rules package.

Most of the engine's geometry defined by rules, crank included, and the huge single turbine.

[superden]

Oooh, that V4  Ducati reminds me of way back when ...

 

 

... happy days.

[AustinF1]

Fair warning though: I have heard the Porsche in real life, it's quite a bit quieter than you'd think. If you hear it passing a GTE Corvette or Aston Martin (thundering NA V8s with ground-level exhaust exits) it's almost drowned out. Not as much as the Audis, but you can barely hear it. Certainly not loud enough to even consider earplugs.

This has been my experience at WEC races as well.

[Lazy]

Well, it seems that F1 is discussing moving to v4 turbos without the MGU-H (the electric generator attached to the exhaust).

 

How would these PU's sound? Nice tone? Loud? 

What's the point of a turbo but no mguh? Worst of both worlds.

[Lazy]

Porsche has one?

 

Meanwhile there are 4 manufacturers with 1.6l V6s that could be converted into conventional twin turbos (ie no MGUH).

Meanwhile there are 4 manufacturers with probably the most impressive engine ever raced. Why waste money developing worse ones.

[Lazy]

Oooh, that V4  Ducati reminds me of way back when ...

 

 

... happy days.

Loved that bike.

[Nonesuch]

Why the V6!?

 

It was a compromise to please Ferrari - and Ferrari's voice rightfully carries a lot of weight.

 

What's the point of a turbo but no mguh? Worst of both worlds.

 

Costs and weight are too high for F1, according to some factions.

 

[OO7]

What's the point of a turbo but no mguh? Worst of both worlds.

Losing the MGU-H is supposed to help with cost and sound, the latter of which I'm unsure about.  A turbo without an MGU-H would still be the most efficient configuration.

[Lazy]

Costs and weight are too high for F1, according to some factions.

 

Surely it will more expensive to develop a new motor?

[OO7]

Surely it will more expensive to develop a new motor?

That's because you're thinking sensibly and logically.

[Lazy]

Losing the MGU-H is supposed to help with cost and sound, the latter of which I'm unsure about.  A turbo without an MGU-H would still be the most efficient configuration.

Not nearly so interesting though :/

[OO7]

Not nearly so interesting though :/

I agree.  I would be quite happy if they kept the current configuration, but ditched the battery.  They could then increase fuel flow to compensate (which would also lead to greater MGU-H 'Self-Sustaining' output) and rescind the maximum race fuel allowance regulation.

 

Ideally I'd also like them to free up valve train regulations for more development in that area.

Edited by OO7, 03 April 2017 - 17:04.

[FullThrottleF1]

Alfa Romeo, IIlmor and VW all attended the meeting.

[f1paul]

V10 then V8 then V6 then V4 then V2 then electric then potato power then push the car yourself then remote control then that will make me stop watching F1. 

Edited by f1paul, 03 April 2017 - 17:53.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

That in my opinion doesn't sound really any different to the current PU...

[Boing Ball]

I don't understand how V4s will fix perceived sound issues with the V6s, but maybe I am not thinking expensively enough.

[TheRacingElf]

I really dislike the sound of the current V6 F1 engines but having experienced both the F1 engines and the Porsche V4 turbo LMP1 engines live I would take the current V6s over the Porsche V4 any day of the week.

 

The Porsche V4 is really really quiet in real life and in my opinion the pitch of the sound really isn't much better or maybe even worse than the V6 F1 engines. They still don't sound exciting at all so I don't understand why this configuration is even considered when the sound is one of things high on the agenda for the next engine formula 

[SenorSjon]

It was a compromise to please Ferrari - and Ferrari's voice rightfully carries a lot of weight.

 

 

Costs and weight are too high for F1, according to some factions.

 

 

It was also Newey and others who wanted the engine as stressed member in the car. The desired I4 was too tiny. Especially with the longboats current F1 cars are.

[V8 Fireworks]

F1's V6 sounds better than Porsche's V4 though. 

 

 

Eh... No comment.

 

 

Meanwhile there are 4 manufacturers with probably the most impressive engine ever raced. 

 

 

Overexpensive, overcomplicated, sounds bad... Yeah they are great. 

[V8 Fireworks]

Surely it will more expensive to develop a new motor?

 

No, not if you make it simple enough that a Cosworth or Ilmor can develop a complete, competitive engine for $10m in R+D, and these engines should retail for no more than say $150k per brand new PU.  So 5 in a season, plus 2 test engines, x 2 cars = $1.7m per team for full season's engine lease.

 

On the development side that is 100x cheaper than the current PUs.  100x!!!

 

You can buy a turbocharger off the shelf for $3k, custom pistons and conrods can be ordered from Wiseco or Mahle for less than $10k/set, even allowing for developing the castings, patterns and mould for crank, block, head, intake and exhaust header there is no reason for the power units to cost more than $150k per unit.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 03 April 2017 - 21:54.

[OO7]

No, not if you make it simple enough that a Cosworth or Ilmor can develop a complete, competitive engine for $10m in R+D, and these engines should retail for no more than say $150k per brand new PU.  So 5 in a season, plus 2 test engines, x 2 cars = $1.7m per team for full season's engine lease.

 

On the development side that is 100x cheaper than the current PUs.  100x!!!

 

You can buy a turbocharger off the shelf for $3k, custom pistons and conrods can be ordered from Wiseco or Mahle for less than $10k/set, even allowing for developing the castings, patterns and mould for crank, block, head, intake and exhaust header there is no reason for the power units to cost more than $150k per unit.

Good points, however this is F1 and it's expected to be the pinnacle or at least be able to offer/demonstrate the most refined versions of current technologies.  COTS can't do this.

Edited by OO7, 03 April 2017 - 21:57.

[Wuzak]

I really dislike the sound of the current V6 F1 engines but having experienced both the F1 engines and the Porsche V4 turbo LMP1 engines live I would take the current V6s over the Porsche V4 any day of the week.

 

The Porsche V4 is really really quiet in real life and in my opinion the pitch of the sound really isn't much better or maybe even worse than the V6 F1 engines. They still don't sound exciting at all so I don't understand why this configuration is even considered when the sound is one of things high on the agenda for the next engine formula 

 

The WEC rules have a flat flow rate rather than the formula F1 uses, the result being that the engine revs less. Also mitigating against more rpm is the fact that there are fewer cylinders and the capacity is larger, so cylinders are bigger.

 

Hence the exhaust is of a lower pitch.

[Alonsofan007]

hell no!!!!

[TF110]

The WEC rules have a flat flow rate rather than the formula F1 uses, the result being that the engine revs less. Also mitigating against more rpm is the fact that there are fewer cylinders and the capacity is larger, so cylinders are bigger.
 
Hence the exhaust is of a lower pitch.

Right. That Porsche V4 has a max rev 8-9k rpm. They run a lot lower fuel flow as well, over 15% less in the 8mj class. So it's probably not going to be the same sound if the engine was done for f1. I think it'd rev near 13k rpm and that would definitely change the way it sounds.

[Lazy]

No, not if you make it simple enough that a Cosworth or Ilmor can develop a complete, competitive engine for $10m in R+D, and these engines should retail for no more than say $150k per brand new PU.  So 5 in a season, plus 2 test engines, x 2 cars = $1.7m per team for full season's engine lease.

 

On the development side that is 100x cheaper than the current PUs.  100x!!!

 

You can buy a turbocharger off the shelf for $3k, custom pistons and conrods can be ordered from Wiseco or Mahle for less than $10k/set, even allowing for developing the castings, patterns and mould for crank, block, head, intake and exhaust header there is no reason for the power units to cost more than $150k per unit.

Yeah and some furry dice and neon underfloor lighting.

[Henri Greuter]

 

 

 

 

Overexpensive, overcomplicated, sounds bad... Yeah they are great. 

 

.... And amazing in extracting and converting the amount of energy stored in a given quantity of fuel into power that goes the the rear axle of a car.

Not a single other kind of petrol combustion engine package in existance is able to make so much usable power out of so little fuel.

 

Overexpensive? Yes but how often did new technology started out cheap?

Overcomplicated? Yes but look at the reliability rate of the cars nowadays. The far more simple Cosworhts and elderly V10's etc didn't survive anywhere as long as nowaday so complicated or not, they are pretty durable.

Sounds bad? Yes but that's not the primary aim of a racing engine, only a `pleasant` bonus if it does.

 

Yes, they are indeed great. Not foultless, but awesome nonetheless.

 

 

Henri

[SenorSjon]

Yes, I love to really see and hear the thermal efficiency at work. 

 

In the meantime, cars are suffering from obesitas like most of the Western World. 

[superden]

Obesitas? Sounds like a clinic in Switzerland.

[Henri Greuter]

Yes, I love to really see and hear the thermal efficiency at work. 

 

In the meantime, cars are suffering from obesitas like most of the Western World. 

 

 

Let them reduce the wheelbase of the cars as well as front overhang with the number of wing elements, that will save some kgs as well.....

Not mentioning how much better the will gonna look from then on....

 

 

Henri

[Lazy]

Yes, I love to really see and hear the thermal efficiency at work. 

 

In the meantime, cars are suffering from obesitas like most of the Western World. 

Son gordas por  seguridad ;)

[TecnoRacing]

A 4-cylinder to 'cure' noise complaints?...good luck with with that   

 

Hopefully this idea will be shot down sooner rather than later...

 

Anyway there are lots of great sounding v6 racing engines - the current F1 engines not being among them.

[EthanM]

.... And amazing in extracting and converting the amount of energy stored in a given quantity of fuel into power that goes the the rear axle of a car.

Not a single other kind of petrol combustion engine package in existance is able to make so much usable power out of so little fuel.

 

Overexpensive? Yes but how often did new technology started out cheap?

Overcomplicated? Yes but look at the reliability rate of the cars nowadays. The far more simple Cosworhts and elderly V10's etc didn't survive anywhere as long as nowaday so complicated or not, they are pretty durable.

Sounds bad? Yes but that's not the primary aim of a racing engine, only a `pleasant` bonus if it does.

 

Yes, they are indeed great. Not foultless, but awesome nonetheless.

 

 

Henri

 

 

Also excellent at being turned down and cruising half the race, cause that's the only way they last 4 (next year 7) race weekends. But hey, while we're bored out of our minds with nobody racing, we'll console outselves with the awesome 30% reduction in fuel usage. In a sport that wastes fossil fuels flying freaking chairs and tea cups around the world so that paddock club guests have uniform lunch settings from one race to the next.

[Henri Greuter]

Also excellent at being turned down and cruising half the race, cause that's the only way they last 4 (next year 7) race weekends. But hey, while we're bored out of our minds with nobody racing, we'll console outselves with the awesome 30% reduction in fuel usage. In a sport that wastes fossil fuels flying freaking chairs and tea cups around the world so that paddock club guests have uniform lunch settings from one race to the next.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not in favour of only 4 engines this season. As stated elsewhere by someone, I also doubt if it really makes the overal costs for engines lower if you can use only four all year instead of a larger number. Because of the long time an engine is used you must invest so much in making them so durable, I wonder if that eventually is cheaper than allowing more engines to be replaced, thus enabling cheaper parts and reduce manufacturing costs.

BTW, should those engines be cheaper because of lesser quality pats used and more engines being allowed over the season, good chance that the power output of the PU's would be even higher than what it is right now because the `cruise mode` can be raised.....

The potential of thses engines isn't fully reached due tot that restricted number of engines allowed.

 

Henri