44 replies to this topic

[Mobile_Chicane]

What was the reasoning behind the move to stop V12's from being used until 2007? There was no problem with then being used until mid 1990's.

Toyota seems to be very unhappy about the desicion as they were developing one and have now had to abandon everything and start all over thus delaying their entry until 2002.

[Clatter]

I think the claim was down to costs.

Ferrari were also developing a v12 as well, but because the smaller teams would not have been able to afford the upgrade they banned them instead.

I dont agree with this sort of decision, because if F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport then these sort of barriers should not exist.

[Ray Bell]

That's right. Bring back the X24s, I say! It should be a capacity limit, a weight limit, external dimension limits and that's about all.

[FredF1]

Does that mean that the V8 configuration is banned as well. Where the hell did this one come from? I thought that Ferrari went over to the V10 more from necessity than anything else? I never heard of there being a ruling against having a V12. Keeping costs down is a farce! Like developing a V10 is cheaper 'cos there's less valves involved. In that case grooved tires should be banned due to 'development costs' and as for all those expensive aerodynamic tweaks..... Ban 'em all!

[Clatter]

These are the rules relating to engine spec from the FIA.

Yes v8's are banned as well.


5.1 Engine specification :

5.1.1) Only 4-stroke engines with reciprocating pistons are permitted.

5.1.2) Engine capacity must not exceed 3000 cc.

5.1.3) Supercharging is forbidden.

5.1.4) All engines must have 10 cylinders and the normal section of each cylinder must be circular.

5.1.5) Engines may have no more than 5 valves per cylinder.

[Todd]

This regulation has been pending for more than a year. I can't help but to wonder if Toyota's motorsport board is just using it to avoid fiscal malfeasance charges from the share holders. Toyota never planned to take the grid in 2001. They just paid the fee to hald the spot when the economy was strong enough to make a shortage of team franchises in F1. They knew it was spent money rather than an investment in a 2001 team.

If you wonder why the rule was made, Honda and Ferrari were developing V12s and Ron Dennis didn't want them to.

[bs]

Yep, cost is the issue, and I agree w/Todd-this is a PR blather from Toyota to satisfy shareholders.

Really, the folks at Toyota would have to have their head in the sand (if not some other dark place) to not realize that this was a rule *and* it had been discussed a great deal already.

I question their ablity to get their act together-it took 'em years to develop a competitive engine in CART and much of the actual development of that engine (or series of engines)was done by TRD in California, not in Japan.

The V10 rule is dumb. A V12 reving at around 20,0000 rpms would sound marvelous.

[RedFever]

nah, it's not about costs......it's that only one team has successfully built a 12 cilinder engine in the past 30 years........ Ferrari was in favor of allowing 12 cilinders (as was Toyota, of course), but Mercedes didn't want them........neither did Frank or Eddie.........and they say the FIA always does what Ferrari wants.....;)

[desmo]

For the record, all the teams agreed to the stipulation of 10 cylinder engines at last winter's Concorde meetings. A purely futile gesture to the grid fillers. Really helped them didn't it? Cost containment through manipulation of the technical regs is as old as motor racing. It ignores the fact that a teams budget is dictated by it's ability to raise sponsorship capital and not on the rulebook. I assume most of the principals are bright enough to have realised this truth, so I can only assume that the motivations are political in nature.

Red Fever, when you say only one team has successfully built a 12 cyl. F1 motor in the last 30 years, which team are you referring to? I'd say that both Ferrari and Honda have a legitimate claim to that and others have as well depending on your definition of success.

[RedFever]

Desmo, obviously I was being a bit sarcastic.

However, my definition of success was for a 12 cilinder to win F1 races, as this is an F1 BB. I don't recall Honda a) being a team.... b) most important, winning in F1 with a 12 cilinder. Weren't they using a 10?

Also, Ferrari was NOT in favor of banning the 12 cilinder (excuse me, but why on hell would they spend money of preliminary work for such a unit if they were going to be against it???????). They just had no interest in fighting a battle that would change nothing for the team. The only real loser here is the poor guys at Toyota that got screwed for no fault of their own, just the usual sordid political games of the big F1 boys.

[Todd]

RedFever,

Bad news. Honda won the 1991 WDC with a V12 in the MP4/6. I don't blame you for not knowing though. What is worth remembering about a Honda engine?

[RedFever]

well, then, my apologies to Desmo, I was convinced it was a V10. I guess I was mislead by the fact that I barely followed the 91 F1 season as I was in grad school (and I had no cable TV). I only watched one race live in Monza that year. I remember the Ferrari boxer 12 cilinders noise and that MacLaren's unit was a far cry from that in terms of noise. I completly missed it was a 12.

Ah the good old days ...Ferrari, Matra and above all ALfa Romeo in the late 70s-early 80s (pre-turbo), their noise was so intense as to sometimes being painful to the ear....yet, I wanted more. Nothing compared to today's engines, not even close.

[Peeko]

Yeah, I remember that Honda V12 sounding like crap. It didn't sing, but rather, well, just made noise...

[desmo]

"What is worth remembering about a Honda engine?"

Are you kidding? I think a good case can be made for Honda being the most successful and innovative proponant of four-stroke technology since the late 50s. Even when they weren't racing in F1, their developments in the motorcycle arena have been nothing short of incredible. Only Renault in F1 have impressed me as much. I love Ferrari but, honestly, I can't off the top of my head think of a single significant innovation original to them that they have ever introduced in one of their engines.

[Sudsbouy]

Just a point of clarification. If I remember correctly, Ferrari changed to a 10 cylinder configuration because it was more efficient given the technology and rules at that time. I think there were weight and fuel consumption penalties with the 12 cylinder vs the 10 cylinder.

The reason they and others were investigating a 12 cylinder engine in the last year was because of there had been sufficient changes in the available technology such that there might have been an advantage to this configuration.

Anyone help me out on this? Is this summary essentially correct?

Thank you.

[MN]

Originally posted by Todd
.....What is worth remembering about a Honda engine?

If you say so.....;)

For the record:

1986 WCC Williams-Honda V6 Turbo
1987 WCC Willimas-Honda V6 Turbo
1988 WCC McLaren-Honda V6 Turbo
1989 WCC McLaren-Honda V10 n/a
1990 WCC McLaren-Honda V10 n/a
1991 WCC McLaren-Honda V12 n/a
1992 WCC Williams-Renault V10 n/a (Honda lost)

1993, Honda was no longer in F1. They still had their own Honda-Honda proto type nicknamed "U2" (all carbon fiber black, no paint) and it had a V12 n/a.

[Damop]

It is a futile gesture at cost containment. If F1 is to truly be about technical innovation and prowess, then they need to have some latitude in the rules. I really question Mercedes/Ilmor engineering capabilities if they can't come up with a V-10 that can beat a V-12 or a V-12 of their own. I suspect that McLaren are already screwed for next year when Be-Al alloy is not longer allowed. It makes me wonder if the Ferraris are so strong this year without Be-Al, they should crush the Macs next year.

[Damop]

I am also disappointed by the rule regarding the number of valves. It would be neat to see how they come up with solutions for the hot spots that a lot of valves would present. It would also be beneficial considering how over-square F1 engines are to increase the surface area of the valves within the cylinder head and perhaps even control the amount of fuel-air that passes through each valve to optimize combustion. But alas it shan't happen.

Hmm, makes me think though. I wonder how GM will do with pushrod engines and two valves per cylinder ;)

[desmo]

Damop, I wouldn't assume that the Ferarri doesn't use Be-Al alloy pistons and liners this year. Also, in formulae that leave the number of valves/cylinder open, four valves has always won out over designs with more. The primary advantage of more valves isn't valve area as much as valve circumfrence, which is more critical at low lift where the valves spend most of their open period.

[MN]

4-valves/cyl is the best as per Honda's extensive research.
Remember Ferrari used to had 5-valves/cyl(so did Yamaha maybe?) but they had gone back to 4-valves as soon as Gotoh(ex-Honda engineer) joined Ferrati in late 1992 or early 1993.
I seem to remember seeing 6-valves/cyl Maserati engine though.
Honda has 8-valves/cyl motor cycle engine but cylinders are oval shaped and it's not allowed in F1.

[Damop]

I read a release from Ferrari some time back that said they didn't use it. And I believe everything they say But I am pretty sure they don't use it - someone here may have a reference at their fingertips.

As for the number of valves and shape, don't forget that the engine budgets of F1 teams eclipses that of other formulae, and other formulae don't use the relatively large bore of F1 cars. Given time, I'm sure that the number of valves would increase. After all, Ferrari have found five valves per cylinder to be more beneficial than four on road cars. Good point about the lift though. Actuation would also be problematic in 8-valve engine! Imagine trying to time the overlap for that at 20,000 rpms!

[MN]

Originally posted by Damop
...... After all, Ferrari have found five valves per cylinder to be more beneficial than four on road cars. .....

Yep, that's what Ferrari says ;) and F355s and other road cars have 5-valve/cyl.
Interestingly enough though despite minus 2 cylinders (V8 3.5 liter .vs V6 3.0 liter) and 100ps less horse power(380ps .vs 280ps) NSX is faster than F355 up to 180km/h. After 180Km/h F355 can slowly pull away.
[p][Edited by MN on 07-10-2000]

[Mobile_Chicane]

ber alloy isnt too much of an issue. There are already other more expensive alloys that the teams have found and use

[Damop]

Interesting, I would like to see that data. The hp figures are also different than what we get on this side of the pond. The problem with the NSX and most Honda VTEC motors is that they have great power up top, but no meat down low. Try going to WOT in second gear at 40 kph and see which one pulls away - my money is on the F355! I have this stuff at home in my C/D back issues, I'll dig them out and take a look next time I need to do my daily business.

Although this introduces the variable of breaking, Road and Track reports in the September 1999 issue that the Acura NSX will do 0-100-0 in 18.5 seconds. The F355 did it in 17.1 seconds. That's a pretty dramatic difference. I'll get back to you on the other later (although I may have to use data from the F360 if that's OK).

[MN]

Damop, I may made error in NSX's engine size. It might be NSX Type-S with 3.2 liter V6 instead of 3.0 liter V6.

Horse power figure is still the same, 280ps.
Thanks to silly Japanese goverment guideline or gentleman's agreement or whatever.
They can't produce more than 280ps. Therefor 5.0 liter V12 Toyota Century or 2.2 liter flat-4 turbo Subaru Legacy wagon or Skyline or Supra or NSX or whatever.... they all are 280ps.
-AND- they all have to have 180Km/h speed limitter.

[Ray Bell]

Other engine builders to have won GPs with a V12 in the past thirty years include Alfa and BRM... remember the fan car? it was a 12 (flat, which is 180 degree Vee). BRM made the whole car, too, so fitting into that criterion. Won Monza, Monaco (fastest and slowest races of the year with the one car! Different drivers... but the very same car), Spa (another fast one, before the track was changed).
And they supplied V12 engines to a present day team that would rather not let you know.
Anyone know which GP teams used the BRM V12?
A clue: It was before the Cosworth became available to teams other than Lotus...

[pa]

Originally posted by MN
Damop, I may made error in NSX's engine size. It might be NSX Type-S with 3.2 liter V6 instead of 3.0 liter V6.

Horse power figure is still the same, 280ps.
Thanks to silly Japanese goverment guideline or gentleman's agreement or whatever.
They can't produce more than 280ps. -AND- they all have to have 180Km/h speed limitter.

Nothing that a little tuning and a new chip/download won't cure pretty quick...

For the record, guys, a 125 cc shifter kart does the 0-120-1 in less than 12 seconds. Not bad for under 10 grand. 'Course, there's no place for luggage or Miss Pinky, you have to wear a rib protector, and you can't handle it for much more than about 20 laps without having a heart attack, but hey, it's pure performance...

[MN]

Fan car? Driven by Niki Lauda???
BRM V12? Brabum(sp)???

[Ray Bell]

Yes, the fan car driven by Niki Lauda... it was a Brabham, but what car other than BRM ran with the BRM V12? Didn't win, mind you, and it didn't last long.

[EKB]

Suds-

Your summary of the ferrari V-12 - V-10 switch is correct. With the development of Berellium (sp?) Alloy (Be-Al, I hope this is correct, it's been years since highschool chemistry) among other developments made running a V-12 practical again. Be-Al was banned by the FIA on "health and safty grounds" but I've been told that this was a bit of a red herring, that there are plenty of other toxic substinces used in F1, including the dust from carbon fiber.

It was also spectualted that Renault were working on building a V-8 with either very small or no radiators at all! The weight savings and packaging advantages from not having any rads would offset the loss in power. Of course, this is all moot given the V-10 only rule.

Cheers,

EKB

[desmo]

I vaguely remember that, seeing BRM's name as the engine supplier to other marques in those old R&T reports. Didn't BRM supply more than one other team? I don't remember but if you'd asked me 20 years ago...

I would have guessed that the Brabham fan car used an Alfa-Romeo flat-12. Too lazy to look it up, I'm sure you're right, Ray.[p][Edited by desmo on 07-07-2000]

[MN]

Ray, is it Cooper?
I should start visiting the Nostalgia board....;)

[MN]

Repco ?!?!

[desmo]

EKB, actually I believe the primary rationale given for the beryllium ban was cost containment. Yeah, that ban'll shrink those budgets alright!

Ah, the Renault adabiatic engine. The details still haven't leaked out on that one yet. That was actually done in (damn those rotters at the FIA!) by the 3.5 bar coolant pressurisation limit. I'd love to learn more about that engine. To me that is the most logical development avenue for the piston 4-stroke engine right now.

[Ray Bell]

Yes, Ferrari went V10 for both compactness and weight, allied with mechanical losses, balanced against power... all compromise, and V10 seems to be the right one for F1 as a 3-litre formula with skinny engines... A W engine (with three banks of cylinders), for instance, would be shorter for a 12 than a V10, but would be difficult to work the air around... all compromise.

No, it wasn't Cooper, I'm sure they only used the Maserati V12 in the 3-litre F1, in both 24 and 36-valve configurations. Good try, MN.
As for Repco, they didn't have that kind of budget.. they built up from the Buick/Oldsmobile block, then cast their own, changing heads as they had different ideas. In 1968 they had a lot of failures in the valvegear (that year they finally went twin-cam and 4-valve), and Phil Irving put it down to lubrication... different oil being used by the team than the dyno staff! Anyway, Phil surmised that it would be better to use different oil in the top to the bottom to cater for the different jobs. That would be easy with toothed belt drives, but there would undoubtedly be problems sealing each off with timing gears or chains... or maybe not, Repco used a slide-on timing chest...
Anyway, chaps, back to the guesses about the BRM V12 user... as I said, they didn't use it for long..
And I'll give you another clue, it was the team that used the most different engines in the life of the 3.0/1.5 formula.

[desmo]

Ray, the McLaren M2A? Didn't Bruce put a BRM into that after the Indy-Ford? And didn't someone else use a BRM engine in the early 70s? I thought the early 70s BRMs were quite fetching with their Rubenesque side contours and Yardley livery. Pedro Rodriguez got a couple of good placings for them didn't he? We're getting in Nostalgia Forum teritory here, I'm afraid.

[Ray Bell]

You got it, desmo! Cheese and crackers free next time you visit me!
McLaren, after the failure of the Ford Indy V8 (destroked etc) went to Serenissima and used their Sports Car engine (3-litre V8), and he also used a BRM 2.2-litre V8 as a stop-gap before the V12. From then on the Cosworth DFV, then to the TAG-Porsche V6 and finally the Honda V6 (turbos, of course).
They haven't done too bad in the subsequent formula, either... Honda V12, Honda V10, Peugeot V10, Ilmor V10.
I don't think any team used any more than that, any advances, or do you want to take this up under Nostalgia?
I don't think BRM V12s were used in any other F1 cars, but in a Sports Car or two... and yes, Pedro put in a good run here and there, I'm fairly sure he won at Spa... it was Gethin at Monza and Beltoise at Monaco... were there others?
Looked up the 71 results, here we are, Siffert won in Austria... and 1970, Pedro at Spa at 149.93 mph... Beltoise won at Monaco in the rain in 1972 in the car Gethin used at Monza to win at an average of 150.71mph.

[Damop]

Pa - is that 0-120-0 kph or mph? I have a hard time believing a shifter kart will do it if your figures are in mph. A shifter cart likely can barely hit 160 kph. My 0-100-0 figures were for mph, since it was from Road and Track, which provides its figures in mph.

[Damop]

Yeah, all the Japanese cars are magically 280 hp. I like that about the Japanese market. I don't get the point of publishing low hp figures like that when people can get the real power ratings from other countires...

[pa]

Damop.

Check out the specs on Bob Bondurant's 125 cc shifter. Numbers are right there in black and white. The 0-100-0 m.p.h. time is 10 secs., and 2.5 Gs in the corners. WIth minor extrapolation, I figure the extra 20 m.p.h. would add another 2 secs, and rememeber, these things are stock karts. Imagine what you'd get with a bit of tuning! Quite a surprise, huh? Pretty scary! Makes a Modena seem like a shopping cart!

http://www.bondurant....com/specs.html[p][Edited by pa on 07-07-2000]

[Damop]

Damn that is sweet! Too bad it can't be licensed for the street. Never mind the Viper, it makes the karts TBone and I race in look like grocery carts! Mind you, I'd probably take the Viper for longer trips, with the Viper being a luxurious automobile equipped with stereo, A/C, and cushy leather seats ;)

That's interesting - the last specs I saw on a 125 cc shifter kart were in C/D and going by memory that kart couldn't top 140 kph. I guess the specs have changed in the last 3 years and I haven't kept up. Shame on me! Just as impressive is the cornering grip - 2.5 g, all mechanical grip! Gotta like it!

[RedFever]

Ray Bell, I wouldn't compare the 12 cilinder results of Alfa and BRM to Ferrari and Honda.

The Alfa victory in 1978 in Sweden was....well...a big cheat. The car utilized a ventilator/fan in the rear that sucked the air from the bottom and blew it out from behind, creating the Venturi effect that the other big cheat of 1978, the Lotus 79, a completly illegal car, managed to create with moveable aerodinamic parts called miniskirts. While Lotus was allowed to cheat for the rest of the year and eventuallt steal the WC, Brabham/AlfaRomeo was forced after that single victorious appearance to get rid of the fan car (a sign of politics back then, car is illegal so you can't use it next race, but you can keep the 9 points!!!).

BRM victories were sporadic (no WCs) and the company is no longer around. Of course of the existing F1 engines suppliers (and incoming) Ferrari and Honda are the only ones who achieved real success.

[Ray Bell]

Red, after a comment about a lack of V12 success in 30 years I merely pointed to race wins by V12s in that period. And if the BRM was so unsuccessful, how come Pedro and Seppi did so well with them?
The two fastest ever GP wins... not worth remembering?
I think if you go back to the source of my response, you will see the sense of it.
Apart from that, I agree with you about the Brabham fan car... almost a better thing than wings, more reliable, less susceptible to 'diffuser stall,' nobody could take your 'air' off you so passing would be improved.
By the look of it we should make fan cars mandatory!
As for skirts, they were a blind alley that should have been nipped in the bud. Springs and little shock absorbers on them, even, and a man at the circuit for each car just to look after the skirts. A waste.

[MN]

Originally posted by Damop
....... Actuation would also be problematic in 8-valve engine! Imagine trying to time the overlap for that at 20,000 rpms!

Not quite 20,000rpm but close enough don't you think?

1979 Honda NR(New Racer):
499.5cc, 100 degree Vee-4, Oval cylinder 32-valve DOHC, 8-valve/cyl.

115ps/19,000rpm

[JaqFan]

Originally posted by Clatter
I think the claim was down to costs.

Ironic how Toyota's delayed entry into F1 has cost them around US$50 million (the deposit to Bernie).