27 replies to this topic

[nascar hater]

Can anyone tell me why F1 now allows only V10 engines? It seems like the type of rule one would find in IRL or NASCAR.

[DEVO]

one word: ferrari:p

[Todd]

DEVO,

Ferrari and Honda were two teams that prepared to field V12s before the FIA decided to ban them. What did you mean by answering Ferrari?

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by nascar hater
Can anyone tell me why F1 now allows only V10 engines? It seems like the type of rule one would find in IRL or NASCAR.

I believe there were 2 reasons for this:
1) Decrease development costs
2) Decrease power

Though a V12 is more costly to build than a V10, it should allow for higher revs than a V10 of the same size (in litres that is). However, with current and near future V10's going well over 20.000 RPM, I think point 2 is not really proving itself.

Someone would have to search the news for this to make sure, this is straight from (highly unreliable) memory.

I also heard rumours about the FIA planning to reduce the size of the cars’ engines from 3 litre V10s to 2.5 litre V6s, but I think this is nothing more than a rumour.
2.5 litre V10s would be much more logical.
Of course, this move too smaller engines would be to increase safety.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by Todd
Ferrari and Honda were two teams that prepared to field V12s before the FIA decided to ban them. What did you mean by answering Ferrari?

Some people would like to turn everything into a McLaren / Ferrari / Mika / Michael bashing contest, but let's say there's a there...;)

[Mosquito]

I found a nice article on Formula1.com on Engine specs and the ever changing restrictions on turbo charged vs normally aspirated, capacity, cilinders, etc.

You can read it here

[BlackGhost]

Didn't Ferrari use a V12 in 96 or 95?

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by BlackGhost
Didn't Ferrari use a V12 in 96 or 95?

Yes.
And nothing beats the sound of a the old howling Ferrari V12s

[taran]

Because certain teams, notably Toyota and Ferrari, were experimenting with V12 designs in an effort to "gain the unfair advantage".

The other teams got together, went to Bernie and said:"Look, Bernie, if V12 is the way to go, our engine manufacturers will simply also make V12's. The net effect is we'll all throw away lots of money and everybody will just end up with V12's instead of V10's."


Bernie agreed and the V12 engine configeration was banned "to reduce costs".

[BRG]

Sadly, the V8 configuration was also banned. Even though 8 cylinders are the optimum for a 3 litre engine (according to Keith Duckworth anyway, and I reckon he knows a thing or two about racing engines)

[312 PB]

What a rambling "article" that was, but thx for posting the link. I expect the engine rules will change within the next five years, as tyre technology increases thru competition between Michelin, Bridgestone, and possibly Goodyear.

[Dan_G]

Originally posted by BRG
Sadly, the V8 configuration was also banned. Even though 8 cylinders are the optimum for a 3 litre engine (according to Keith Duckworth anyway, and I reckon he knows a thing or two about racing engines)

I may be mistaken but I believe all of the teams gave up on V-8's of their own accord. Cosworth was the last builder of V-8's for F1, with the last factory Cosworths appearing in the 95 Benetton (perhaps 96?). Anyways, as I recall the problems the teams had with the V-8's was that they couldnt rev as high as the V-10's and 12's which left them with not enough top end to keep up on the straights. The V-8's were excellent getting off the corners though, as they produced alot more low-end torque, making them very "driveable".

[The_Z_Man]

Originally posted by Dan_G
I may be mistaken but I believe all of the teams gave up on V-8's of their own accord. Cosworth was the last builder of V-8's for F1, with the last factory Cosworths appearing in the 95 Benetton (perhaps 96?).

Actually it was 94. In 1995 Benetton had the V-10 Renault just as Williams.

Anyways, as I recall the problems the teams had with the V-8's was that they couldnt rev as high as the V-10's and 12's which left them with not enough top end to keep up on the straights. The V-8's were excellent getting off the corners though, as they produced alot more low-end torque, making them very "driveable".

And they were lighter, more compact and less thirsty than the V-12. That's what prompted Renault to develop the then innovative V-10 compromise which combined the best of both worlds.

The_Z_Man

[HartleyHare]

Ferrari initially prevented a restriction to V8's some years ago (and thank heavens they did). But when Ferrari too decided to abandon V12's for a V10, the FIA proposed to limit the series to a max of 10 cylinders for reasons of stability and cost. Well that was the excuse anyway. I can't see the benefit in banning variety. Seems the real reason was to maintain a status quo where narrow rules mean money rules. They are all pretty well heading down the same development path so money is the main determining factor influencing success.

Imagine how awful it would have been if Ferrari and Toyota sprung V12's on the field and they were quicker...

Remember what MS said after testing the '95 Ferrari, the last of the V12's? 'I could win a championship with that'. Was the V10 a backward step for Ferrari? After all, Berger and Alesi haven't exactly shown any inclination to win with any frequency whatever the tools at their disposal. So the fact that even they could occasionally challenge (and even win) suggests it might have had a brief heyday in the hands of a decent driver.

Mind you, the change to go-kart tracks would mitigate against any possible advantages in the V12 layout. But it would have been fun to see them howling away from the field on the long straights. Roll on the manufacturers series and more liberal rules.

[Dan_G]

Thanks Z_Man. I coudnt remember exactly which year Cosworth built the last V-8's for F1, but I knew they were last factory supplied to Benetton.

[Rene]

It would be nice if the FIA simply said as long as its below 3.0L (or 2.8L or 2.5L in the future) you can build with as many or as few cylinders as you want....the more freedom in the sport the better if you ask me...which you didn't!

[taran]

Not completely correct z-man.

Benetton did indeed switch to Renault V10 power and actually bought Ligier to get the engines. Ford then made a deal with Sauber to run the ex-Benetton engines.

1995 was the year that engines were reduced from 3.5 liters to 3.0.

The Ford 3.0 wasn't a success as it was generally just scaled down, not redesigned but the Sauber chassis was also a dog.

V8's still were fashionable although decreasing in popularity. Brian Hart build a brand new V8 for Arrows in 1996 and Cosworth still leased their ED engines to Minardi and the other minnows.

For 1996 Ford had Cosworth design a brand new V10 for Sauber. The redundant Zetec-R V8 were then used for the customer programme if customers could afford them. Most stayed with updated versions of the ED V8.

As development petered out because the back of the grid customers simply couldn't afford funding development the V8 slowly faded away.

[Damop]

Rules out Lawn Boy's triumphant entry into F1 with a large, smoke billowing 3.0L single cylinder two-stroke mill.

[The_Z_Man]

Thanks for the additional bit of info, taran.

The_Z_Man

[baddog]

Originally posted by HartleyHare
Ferrari initially prevented a restriction to V8's some years ago (and thank heavens they did). But when Ferrari too decided to abandon V12's for a V10, the FIA proposed to limit the series to a max of 10 cylinders for reasons of stability and cost. Well that was the excuse anyway. I can't see the benefit in banning variety. Seems the real reason was to maintain a status quo where narrow rules mean money rules. They are all pretty well heading down the same development path so money is the main determining factor influencing success.

Imagine how awful it would have been if Ferrari and Toyota sprung V12's on the field and they were quicker...

Remember what MS said after testing the '95 Ferrari, the last of the V12's? 'I could win a championship with that'. Was the V10 a backward step for Ferrari? After all, Berger and Alesi haven't exactly shown any inclination to win with any frequency whatever the tools at their disposal. So the fact that even they could occasionally challenge (and even win) suggests it might have had a brief heyday in the hands of a decent driver.

Mind you, the change to go-kart tracks would mitigate against any possible advantages in the V12 layout. But it would have been fun to see them howling away from the field on the long straights. Roll on the manufacturers series and more liberal rules.

I completely agree with this posting.. one of the most interesting things about f1 this year is the very different characteristics but similiar overall performance of the 3 main contenders.. imagine that magnified many times.. I would love to see it. better for f1 to change than a new series though.. the manufacturers have agendas which do NOT include non commercial goals.

Shaun

[ehagar]

If they banned refuelling, and got rid of the V-10 restriction, I wonder what would be the optimal choice? Back to V-8's?

[Vunz]

Originally posted by Mosquito
Yes.
And nothing beats the sound of a the old howling Ferrari V12s

Damn right. You'll understand when you hear this baby scream:

Ferrari 3.5 V12

[Daniel Lester]

The last teams to use a V8 were Minardi and Tyrrell in 97. Both used ford engines and both switched to 97 V10s that Stewart had used in 97 for the 98 season, this was the first time ford had built a V10, Johnny Herbets win in 99 is the only victory by a V10 ford the other 154 were by V8's. The win for a V8 was Michael Schumacher's win in Jerez in 94, when he returned from a two race ban.

[desmo]

"It seems like the type of rule one would find in IRL or NASCAR. " Indeed.

Originally posted in the Tech Forum by Billy Gunn:

"The only way to get more revs (20,000+) would be to go to a V12 and as I've pointed out elsewhere, the narrow track cars seem to like a long wheelbase; don't forget the reason the V10 came about (narrower than a V8, shorter than a V12) was to satisfy the car designers requirement for best package size to suit the aerodynamics, which at the time was short wheelbase. The 10 does balance quite well but as revs increase it is necessary to use an out of balance factor and unnatural firing order to overcome torsional vibration. The TV[torsional crankshaft vibration] aspect of a 10 is worse than an 8 but better than a 12, this may be why the Judd designed Yamaha had a rear drive to the camgear a feature of the company as I seem to remember that their 8's used this design as well (EV,KV, and the 10 cyl GV as well - the latter is currently being used in sportscar racing)
Forget V8's they just have not got the ability to rev (they would struggle to make 15,000), 10's have reached their Nadir at about 18,000 so the only avenue left is a 12, but expect to see (if they ever see the light of a race track!) whacky power take off points to overcome TV issues. Like a central gear point (2 x V6's)driving a asymetric power shaft - this would help to lower C of G by the engine not being constrained by the clutch basket."

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by desmo
...10's have reached their Nadir at about 18,000 so the only avenue left is a 12....

But how about Renault still working on an alledged 20K+ reving engine? Also, Ron Dennis has stated that the Mercedes is, or soon will be capable of doing 20K.

Another thing: For these high revs, they would rather use Electronic / elctromagnetic valves instead of the pneumatics. Are these still allowed and if so, are the FIA going to try to ban this like with the byrellium issue?

[diosh]

Electro-magnetic valve actuation is A LONG way off. To get that technology working at 18,000rpm+ will take quite a few years, the equipment is still very heavy and cumbersome. Somehow the rumours have got out of hand, I think we'll be stuck with peumatic valves for quite some time

[HP]

Originally posted by diosh
Somehow the rumours have got out of hand, I think we'll be stuck with peumatic valves for quite some time

As always. For example, Sony and Philips were talking about read and writeable compact disc's 10 years before they eventualy matured and became usable. And obviously they were looking for solutions all theses years.

Since I have designed an electronic ignition a few years back I know of the problems invovled. Mechanical and electronic troubles.

And sometimes some ideas just disappear. Who remembers Honda attempt to build an engine that used porcelain? That was also thought to rev up to more than 20'000 RPM

[Dan_G]

Ive posted this before, but it might help here...

The problem right now with the engine rev limit is that they are closing in on the point where the fuel cannot burn any faster. Apparently, as the engines are approaching the 19-20k range they are reaching a point where they cannot rev any faster because the fuel doesnt have sufficient time to combust before it needs to be exhausted from the cylinder. It seems there is a huge drop off in power output somewhere just over 18k, due to the fuel not fully combusting therefore losing some power. If you continue to accelerate the engine it will reach a point where it will cease to accelerate under it's own power. The V-12 design allows a few more revs than the V-10 due to smaller cylinder capacity, so the fuel burns slightly faster. Likewise the larger fuel capacity of the V-8 cylinder (assuming the same engine displacement in all cases) means the fuel does not burn as fast. However the powerstroke of a V-8 is more powerful on an individual cylinder basis (providing the superior torque figures) than the V-10 and V-12, but lacks the top end of the V-10 and V-12. The same can be said for the V-10 over the V-12.

It is going to take a V-12 or an advance in fuel technology to get the engines to spin much faster than they do now, and electro-magnetic valves wont matter one iota, if that doesnt happen.