69 replies to this topic

[epic1]

I've never understood why FIA mandated the use of only V-10s in the first place. I liked it back in the olden days when we had V-8s, V-10s, and v-12s all running together. Why can't we go back to that, but with 2.4L displacement? Wouldn't that keep BMW happy, they could still have thier V-10s, Ferrari could have 12s again if they wanted them. Subaru could come in witha Flat-4 if they wanted to!

[Reg]

How about Porsche with a flat six?

Really I think it comes down to cost issues. V-12's really like the rpms and generate power high up in the revs but require more moving parts and I belive have a narrower power band which ultimately means more $$$ or should I say more exotic.

I'd like to see that rule though. It would possibly bring back ingenunity (sp?) as was in the 70's and 80's.

[ScudBoy]

especially if this is about cost reduction, manufacturers should have the choice of engine configuration.
I remember in 1996, the year that Ferrari first switched to V10s. They had constant problems with cracked gearboxs due to the increase in vibrations caused by a 10 cylinder layout as opposed to the 12 they used previously.

I think many teams will encounter similar reliability problems if forced into the V8 config.

[Lukin]

A 90 degree V8 is actually perfectly balanced (in theory) through the first two harmonics (and subsequenct harmonics I assume).

[Bex37]

Why 2.4L V8s?

Because 8/10 of 3.0L is 2.4L.

In other words, you grab your 3.0L V10 and cut off 2 cylinders and you've got a 2.4L V8.

This is supposed to save money. Supposedly, the engine guys will not need to start from scratch with the cylinder and cylinder head designs. I'm somewhat sceptical. Sounds good in theory but you can bet the whole change to 2.4L V8 will place some totally different demands on the engine that will force changes to the cylinder heads. For a start, one of the new rules will fix the bore diameter of the cylinders which will of course change the head design for anyone not using this bore size already. Of course, crankshaft and block designs are going to be completely new in any case.

It all seems totally unecessary to me. They're still not making the sort of horsepower of the turbo era. Aerodynamic downforce is where high cornering speeds come from, not horsepower. Can you imagine how slowly a top fuel dragster would have to go around 130R or Eau Rouge??

[Lukin]

Originally posted by Bex37
It all seems totally unecessary to me. They're still not making the sort of horsepower of the turbo era. Aerodynamic downforce is where high cornering speeds come from, not horsepower. Can you imagine how slowly a top fuel dragster would have to go around 130R or Eau Rouge??

Thats right. Traction is already beating power now, but with smaller and less powerful engines, then it will be getting it's arse kicked. The cars will be completely on rails.

Give em more power and take away the downforce!

[Bex37]

Originally posted by Lukin


Thats right. Traction is already beating power now, but with smaller and less powerful engines, then it will be getting it's arse kicked. The cars will be completely on rails.

Give em more power and take away the downforce!

Absolutely. Even with today's power levels, I can't remember the last time I saw any oversteer after an apex. Traction control just won't let it happen. Where is the spectator value in watching cars on rails? Especially if they become slower than a champ car!

In fact, it makes me cringe just how much understeer the cars are running, particularly the Renaults. No wonder they can't pass anyone.

[100cc]

Originally posted by Bex37

In fact, it makes me cringe just how much understeer the cars are running, particularly the Renaults.

yeah its just painful.

[zac510]

I was watching a 1994 race earlier today and listening to the sound of the Ford HB V8 and then something occured to me - if F1 switches back to high revving V8s (of 2.4 capacity) then they might sound similar to this. The problem here is that Schumacher's Benetton sounded to me like a turbo Champcar! It was quite irritating to have that association

A 2.4 V10 might still sound similar to the current generation of 3.0 V10 engines.

[indigoid]

Originally posted by Bex37
Absolutely. Even with today's power levels, I can't remember the last time I saw any oversteer after an apex. Traction control just won't let it happen. Where is the spectator value in watching cars on rails? Especially if they become slower than a champ car!

In fact, it makes me cringe just how much understeer the cars are running, particularly the Renaults. No wonder they can't pass anyone.

Didn't you see Trulli flying through the swimming pool complex at Monaco this year? There was a great super-slow-motion replay of it - find it if you can, it certainly dispels the 'F1 cars have superglue on their tyres' myth

Admittedly he was on and off the kerbs, and I guess this doesn't help traction too much

[ndsask]

Originally posted by Bex37
Absolutely. Even with today's power levels, I can't remember the last time I saw any oversteer after an apex. Traction control just won't let it happen. Where is the spectator value in watching cars on rails? Especially if they become slower than a champ car!

In fact, it makes me cringe just how much understeer the cars are running, particularly the Renaults. No wonder they can't pass anyone.

Ross Brawn disagrees with you. He said at autosport.com:

"Over the years we have built up a much fuller picture of the dynamic control of the car's performance and the car is now a much more stable platform. That is why you're seeing the cars on rails - it's not traction or diff control. If we took those things off they'd still look like that and nor would the racing be significantly affected."

[wati]

Originally posted by zac510
I was watching a 1994 race earlier today and listening to the sound of the Ford HB V8

It was a Zetec - R, actually.

[MaDDim]

I can't understand the rule of only V8 motors in f1 and furthermore I can't understand why to be so specific in specs of the engine in itself. And if this if for true why the hell for a manufacture will want to compete and spend money in order to have almost the same engine figures with the others? If I was HONDA, BMW, MERCEDES, FORD I would just quit F1 and prefer even the BTCC.

[angst]

Originally posted by ndsask


Ross Brawn disagrees with you. He said at autosport.com:

"Over the years we have built up a much fuller picture of the dynamic control of the car's performance and the car is now a much more stable platform. That is why you're seeing the cars on rails - it's not traction or diff control. If we took those things off they'd still look like that and nor would the racing be significantly affected."

BS, IMO. If the driver had to control the power to the rear wheels, if the diff wasn't transferring so efficiently, if there wasn't so much downforce and the tyres had more slip angle then the cars wouldn't move anything like they do now. The traction/diff control are an important part of the 'dynamic control of the car's performance'.

Back to the original post, I don't think the FIA should be mandating anything about the configuration of the engines other than the displacement. If you look at some of the proposals (fixed cylinder spacing, bore dimensions, CoG etc. etc.) then the manufacturers might as well pool their money to make the basic block, take them away and add their electronic bits and pieces and stick their badge on it. This is one of those 'Max has lost the plot' moments where, despite over-whelming opposition to the idea. Despite over-whelming arguments/evidence stacked up against the idea he is fixated and nothing will sway him from his standpoint. Grooved tyres is the other major point that he is absolutely locked into. It's unfortunate that this is the case because some of the other stuff that he's doing is quite interesting (the one/two tyre set rule, the reduction in downforce without reducing drag).

IF F1 goes down the line of 2.4L then the rules should state only that ; 4 stroke engines with reciprocating pistons only are permitted and that the engine capacity must not exceed 2400cc. That's it. Let the engine manufacturers decide which option they prefer to use. Bearing in mind the two races per engine ruling could a 16cyl be made reliable enough? With fewer fuel stops would a 12 cyl (or 16 cyl) be too thirsty? I think you may find the odd 12cyl, alot of V10s and a few V8s. There are always advantages and disadvantages to each format.

[zac510]

Originally posted by wati


It was a Zetec - R, actually.

I stand corrected, thank you. HB was the earlier V8

[Dudley]

Originally posted by zac510


I stand corrected, thank you. HB was the earlier V8

Only the Benetton were running the Z-T-R in 1994. Everyone else was running HBs.

[Powersteer]

Epic1, there have been many post on this topic and only too many agree with you. What flexibility in cylinders also bring is, smaller teams can run different configurations and could gain an advantage on certain, less powerful tracks that depends on more torque or vice versa, running more cylinders and performing well on higher speed circuits. Best part his how this rule could bring back some overtaking. Its an irony that FIA wants to create overtaking yet impose this sort of rule that everyone has to use the same amount of cylinders. It would be nice to see manufacturers free on cylinder but they have to use that configuration the whole year, now that would be exciting.

Just think, Monaco, Jordan has a 2.4 V6 (from KIA ), better fuel economy and more torque. The fuel advantage would make the car lighter. Michael Schumacher getting old, on the wheel, just think.

Edit: Ferrari to use a 22,000 rp/m 120degree V-12 2.4 liter, 48 valve, direct injection. Just think of the ssssooooouuuunnnnndddddd. A weight penalty should be imposed, 5ib added per cylinder after 6 cylinder. Imagine what would Renault and BMW would do.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Powersteer
Just think, Monaco, Jordan has a 2.4 V6 (from KIA ), better fuel economy and more torque. The fuel advantage would make the car lighter.

If the regulations state a maximum of 2.4 liters and a maximum of eight cylinders, everyone will build the maximum. It's the only combination which makes any engineering sense under those rules. A 2.4 liter V6 will not produce more torque or better fuel economy than a 2.4 V8. The V8 will show better volumetric efficiency throughout the operating range, producing more torque and better fuel economy.

The only way to make say, a V6 attractive would be to introduce a weight penalty for engines of more than six cylinders, or incorporate some packaging gimmick into the rules allowing no room for a V8 in the chassis.

[desmo]

These rules are obviously idiotic, ill concieved, contrary to the historic spirit of the sport, address the wrong problems affecting competitiveness and safety, are useless at their stated goal of containing costs and are prima facie evidence that Max and company haven't the vaguest notion of how to run the sport.

I'd invite Max and his supporters (is there any such thing?) to defend these insane proposals, but obviously they are too arrogant and/or cowardly to face or respond to any sort of criticism. I would be too if those were the ideas I had to defend I suppose. How long must we wait for these doddering and apparently senile old men to die- that seems the only possible thing that will make them finally go away- and what will remain of our once proud sport when they do?

[McGuire]

Here is the inescapable trend in motorsports, as dictated by economic and technological developments over the last several decades: as the tennis racket is to tennis, the race car will become to racing. With the exception of F1, virtually every formula car series on earth is now to some degree a spec series, in engines, chassis, or both. Ultimately, F1 is no more immume to these forces than any other series. There is now too much available technology for open technical competition. The technology is far too costly to offer any hope of a return on investment.

Under the current paradigm, resistance is futile. We gearheads can't have the kind of competition we want; we are a small minority of the total fan population. Technology does not fill the seats, does not pay its way. Therefore it has to go. All we can do at this point is quibble about what rules best foster the reduced level of technical competition which can be economically justified.

[Yelnats]

Actually in an indirect way technology does fill the seats. It gives F1 the prestige that attracts fans who have no direct understanding of the science but are willing to watch based on the reputation that F1 has as the leading proponent of technology in racing.

F1 can coast on this reputation for several years under the new regulations but eventually it's reputation and attracing power will be diminished. Then it will have to depend on the quality of competition which if this year is any indication, good luck!

[desmo]

I agree totally Stan. The technical cachet built up over decades of GP/F1 being the premier technical formula in the world is in real danger of being pissed away by myopic beancounting bureaucrats/robber barons who cannot or will not look further than the next few profit reports. This cachet has given the sport a prestige far beyond that of lesser formulae where it has often been far easier to see a more spectator accessable show but the prestige of F1, due in large part by its technical allure, justifies the hype and expenses to sponsors, entrants, manufacturers and fans on which F1's long term revenue stream relies. Even people who wouldn't know a camshaft from a crankshaft and wouldn't care either realise that F1's "sex appeal" is largely based in its technical reputation as "the pinnacle of motorsport".

To blithely put up one's hands and declare the trend towards F1 becoming a de facto spec series an inevitability is to ignore the fact that other series, such as NASCAR or IRL in the US, can supply a better quality spectator experience for the non-technically inclined viewer. To compete on an even basis with IRL/NASCAR for the attentions of the least common denominator fan demographic, F1 would have to institute the whole panoply of gimmicks- full course yellows for dramatic effect, penalizing the best teams to keep the show more competitive etc. etc.- to assure a telegenic viewing experience that could compete with the likes of NASCAR/IRL. Those guys know all the tricks and F1 could never match them for appealing to that demographic. Once the machinery itself has become as technically prosaic as IRL cars and word filters down to the hoi polloi, what reason remains for F1 to even exist? The brand will have been devalued into worthlessness at that point. Might as well hand the keys over to the Frances or Georges and await the yellow flag to bunch up the field at the Viagra 500 Grand Prix, no?

Viewed in the short-term, it makes a modicum of sense though I'll admit, and Bernie and Max will surely have tottered off to their 24K gold plated nursing homes with all the money by the longer term.

[Powersteer]

A 2.4 liter V6 will not produce more torque or better fuel economy than a 2.4 V8. The V8 will show better volumetric efficiency throughout the operating range, producing more torque and better fuel economy.

Oh no, not another magnus effect, please explain 'show'. This is how I see it.

When Ferrari was running a V-12, they handicapped themselve with fuel economy. When they turn to V-10 the problem was never discussed again. I read somewhere that the four cylinder 750cc SBK superbike take as much, if not more fuel than the twin cylinder Ducati yet can produce as much power. The more cylinder you have, the more moving parts you have but strain has been even out, resulting in engine with more cylinder for the same capacity be able to rev higher but there would be more friction altogether, less efficient. The nature of a lesser cylinder will get you a total longer stroke for the total cubic capacity so eventhough the engine would be very oversquare(per cylinder), the stroke might still be bigger or equal to an engine with more cylinders. The nature of having a larger stroke will lend itself to a more square total bore/stroke ratio and thus would run more efficiently, economicly. A naturally larger stroke engine could not spin as fast as smaller stroked engine(more 'smaller'cylinders) so its full potential has to be on the lower rev range resulting in having to turn the same amount of cubic capacity for less revolutions so less fuel is going into the engine, relative to having less power but still having that torque and better fuel economy.

The longer stroke or the lesser cylinder engine (in a race oversquare), has the mechanical advantage of leverage hence given the same BMEP, it turns the crank harder which equates to more torque and power at the crank. The bicycle crank effect. It lacks having less valves and less cylinder to work as a team so creating total engine BMEP would be more difficult but BMEP needs fuel too, relatively speaking for the same technology, more fuel, less fuel economy. Also V-6 cannot have is a 4-1(X2) exhaust system which will draw more air out of the cylinder than a 3-1(X2). Drawing air out or scavenging will lend itself to using more fuel.

When Toyota came into formula 1, they started with a V-12 that never raced. Before, when the cylinder rule was free there were many 3.5 liter variations of cylinders from V-8 to V-12. Renault started V-10 in formula 1. It was quite obvious that a certain type of engine did benefit from some tracks so the V-10 was good everywhere yet still the Ford Zetec-R V-8 went head to head with the V-10(later Ford ran a V-10). Small teams will gambling on these differences with more or less cylinders so it is wrong to say all teams will build maximum(different track, different maximum) as we have seen in formula 1. Who knows, we might even see a V-9 (as wierd as Honda's V-5) or V-10 at 2400cc. Some see the 300cc per cylinder an optimum in formula one. The lack of capacity might might see this lowered, given the chance.

[McGuire]

Powersteer,
A 2.4 liter V8 will make more torque over a wider rpm range than a 2.4 liter V6, because it will be able to incorporate significantly more valve area. The greater valve area will also produce better specific fuel consumption and higher operating rpm.

The V8 will also have a shorter stroke than the V6, which will permit higher rpm as well. It is not true that a long-stroke engine produces more torque than a short-stroke engine of equal displacement. The long-stroke engine will simply tend to produce its torque at a lower rpm. (This is the true reason long-stroke engines have reputations as "torquers." Essentially, that's all they can do. Since they lack the cranktrain geometry and breathing capacity for high rpm operation, they are optimized for torque at whatever speed they can manage.)

Also, in equal displacement engines, the long stroke version will suffer somewhat higher losses in friction hp, due to the rings and pistons being dragged a greater distance per crankshaft rotation. Any basic engine sim will show this quite easily and I invite you to investigate this yourself.

It is true there is a threshold where friction hp losses overcome the advantages of multiple cylinders. However, a 2.4 liter V8 is nowhere close to this threshold. Its cylinders are 300cc each, the same dimensions as the current F1 V10. With current technology, the friction hp threshold (point of diminishing returns) for a racing V8 is down somewhere around 500cc. For a mass production V8, somewhere around 2.0 liters.

The obstacle with the V12 in the early stages of the current F1 formula was engine weight and packaging. A V12 will naturally tend to be larger and heavier than a V10 of equal displacement, which carries a packaging, handling, and fuel consumption penalty. Also, when the engine is used as a stressed member, the rigidity of the block becomes important. A 2.4 Liter V8 block will be more than sufficiently rigid for any loads encountered in an F1 chassis. And given the current minimum weight requirement, the V6 offers no real advantage in unit weight over the V8.

In short, there is no hope that a 2.4 liter V6 could be competitive against the V8 under this formula, as the matter now stands. It would need some kind of regulatory assistance.

In the past, we used to see a wider variety of engine configurations for a given racing formula. This was due to mainly to economic consderations: many engines by neccessity were based on the architecture of existing racing engines, and in a number of cases even upon production engines. However, since then the game, both in financing and in technical competition, has been raised considerably. In contemporary F1 that approach no longer has any hope of being competitive.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by desmo
To blithely put up one's hands and declare the trend towards F1 becoming a de facto spec series an inevitability is to ignore the fact that other series, such as NASCAR or IRL in the US, can supply a better quality spectator experience for the non-technically inclined viewer.

Don't shoot the messenger. This trend was apparent years, even decades, ago to anyone paying attention. I am telling you: the technical regulations in F1 will continue to grow ever more restrictive. It has nothing to do with the Frances or full-course cautions, or even Max Mosley. It's about the economic realities of the series itself. The cost of technical competition in racing is out of all historical proportions, and that cost is not returning its investment in growing the series.

[CONOSUR]

Originally posted by desmo
These rules are obviously idiotic, ill concieved, contrary to the historic spirit of the sport, address the wrong problems affecting competitiveness and safety, are useless at their stated goal of containing costs and are prima facie evidence that Max and company haven't the vaguest notion of how to run the sport.

I'd invite Max and his supporters (is there any such thing?) to defend these insane proposals, but obviously they are too arrogant and/or cowardly to face or respond to any sort of criticism. I would be too if those were the ideas I had to defend I suppose. How long must we wait for these doddering and apparently senile old men to die- that seems the only possible thing that will make them finally go away- and what will remain of our once proud sport when they do?

My sentiments exactly.

I don't care what displacement limit is set, but there's no excuse for handicapping the designers and engineers by not only dictating cylinder count, but also cylinder spacing, bore, etc. If one group decides a 2.4L I4 is the way to go, while another feel a 2.4L V16 is the way to go, then let them.

The FIA have never mandated the cylinder count until after everyone was using V10s, and then only because Toyota were developing a V12 for their entry in 2002.

Set a displacement limit and then get the hell out of the way...

[McGuire]

I find no reason to believe that as a class F1 fans are more technically oriented or engaged than fans of other series. In fact I find the assertion amusing, in light of many of the discussions in this forum. I don't think the great majority of F1 fans care a hoot what is under the paint, not that they are required to. Different strokes for different folks. They sure don't know a goddamned thing about how these cars work, we know that. That has been established beyond any doubt.

My outrageous presumption is that if the fans cared so much about the technology in these cars, they would make some effort to learn and know something about it. Sorry, I don't see it. I suppose the argument can be made that the "high tech" cachet or veneer of the whole F1 scene is part of the "brand" that sells the "F1 product," but what the hell does that mean? No offense, but isn't that simply another way of saying "bullshit"? If you are suggesting the series is in the business of selling bullshit, isn't there a cheaper form of bullshit they can devise, one the series can actually afford?

[Teflon Mike]

The whole point of F1 from the manufacturer's standpoint has always been to prove to the general public they can build the fastest car in the world. If things really get as bleak as some here are suggesting, do you think Ferrari would be interested in racing the fastest near-spec car that couldn't keep up with a champ car? BMW? Mercedes? They'd all join FIA sportscars before doing that, and seeing as together they hold a very large chunk of the appeal and capital of F1, I really don't see such "cost-cutting" measures being forced down their collective throat.

Teflon
Personally I'd love Le Mans-like rules: you can have this much air, there's an X penalty for forced induction. We could have a rotary F1 car .

[karlcars]

While we're on this subject, I do wish we could have 2.5 liters rather than 2.4. That at least would respect one of the greatest Formulas we've ever had, the outstanding years from 1954 to 1960 with hugely varied cars and drivers.

To expect Formula 1's rulemakers to have any thought for tradition and evolution is way too much, I realize.

[Powersteer]

Eeeerrrr

Also, in equal displacement engines, the long stroke version will suffer somewhat higher losses in friction hp, due to the rings and pistons being dragged a greater distance per crankshaft rotation.

Deosn't the lack of bore diameter make up for this? And in Formula 1 technology term, I see this less and less significant as piston technology gets better. Piston friction is higher than crank bearings friction for the same piston speed/distance(more revolusion for the short stroker), no?Diameter vs stroke. Not to mension the lack of many moving parts going at that speed for the lack of cylinders cannot be unaccounted for. I cannot imagine a 2000cc V-twin having more friction than a 2000cc V16 for the same piston speed/distance. I do agree that, trying to spin a V-6 as high rpm as a V-8 will get complicated with friction because of more baulkier parts.

because it will be able to incorporate significantly more valve area.

More valve area means more air, fuel, scavenging, glorious sounds and less economy.

In short, there is no hope that a 2.4 liter V6 could be competitive against the V8 under this formula, as the matter now stands. It would need some kind of regulatory assistance.

Totally agree with you. I got that idea thinking of Monaco and thinking that a V-6(exaggerating the idea) can have better fuel economy that makes the car lighter and the cranking would make it easier to drive.

Given the flexibility not all teams would use the same configuration. Even if there is that flexibility(low budget teams to use KIA V-6 ;) ) and eventually top teams go back to using V-8, there is no point on fixing it if this is so.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Powersteer
Eeeerrrr



Deosn't the lack of bore diameter make up for this? And in Formula 1 technology term, I see this less and less significant as piston technology gets better. Piston friction is higher than crank bearings friction for the same piston speed/distance(more revolusion for the short stroker), no?Diameter vs stroke. Not to mension the lack of many moving parts going at that speed for the lack of cylinders cannot be unaccounted for. I cannot imagine a 2000cc V-twin having more friction than a 2000cc V16 for the same piston speed/distance. I do agree that, trying to spin a V-6 as high rpm as a V-8 will get complicated with friction because of more baulkier parts.

In terms of cylinder surface friction area (piston circumference x piston stroke) 2.4 liters is 2.4 liters. No matter how you configure the cylinders, you will have 2.4 liters of area by definition. However, there is more friction in the stroke side of the scenario than in the bore side. Lengthening the stroke increases the piston speed, and frictional losses increase as to the square of the speed.

So if you have two two 2.4 liter V8s, one short-stroke and and the other a longer-stroke design, the long-stroke engine will suffer more friction hp. This is a very well-known trait of the long-stroke engine. In comparing engines of identical displacement but different number of cylinders, the picture is more complicated but this all still holds true.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by CONOSUR
My sentiments exactly.

I don't care what displacement limit is set, but there's no excuse for handicapping the designers and engineers by not only dictating cylinder count, but also cylinder spacing, bore, etc. If one group decides a 2.4L I4 is the way to go, while another feel a 2.4L V16 is the way to go, then let them.

The FIA have never mandated the cylinder count until after everyone was using V10s, and then only because Toyota were developing a V12 for their entry in 2002.

Set a displacement limit and then get the hell out of the way...

The regulations will not permit engines with greater than eight cylinders, as the whole idea is to contain costs. Meanwhile, there is no sound reason for the engine manufacturers to even attempt engines of fewer than eight cylinders, as these engines would not be competitive. This is the age of technical convergence. It's not just the rules which make the current cars so strikingly similar and by historical standards, virtually identical to each other. It's also the level of competition and the state of technical development.

[desmo]

Originally posted by McGuire


Don't shoot the messenger. This trend was apparent years, even decades, ago to anyone paying attention. I am telling you: the technical regulations in F1 will continue to grow ever more restrictive. It has nothing to do with the Frances or full-course cautions, or even Max Mosley. It's about the economic realities of the series itself. The cost of technical competition in racing is out of all historical proportions, and that cost is not returning its investment in growing the series.

I don't think my objections to increasing the restrictions in the technical regulations of the sport are entirely quixotic and naive. I would ask if more restrictive technical regulations necessarily reduce real expenditures. I don't think one can simply posit that as a given. I would expect expenditures to be more a function of the size of a teams budget than whatever technical regulations are enacted. The teams will spend what they can raise in any case surely, if the regulations restrict one sort of development, the monies will simply be inevitably rebudgeted into a field of development that isn't as tightly controlled. When that area is then restricted, the engineers just move down the list to the next item. Anything short of a totally spec chassis, tire and engine formula will always leave ways to spend one's budget seeking a performance advantage. I must be missing something as the idea of further restricting the technical regulations to reduce costs is apparently almost universally unquestioningly accepted as a valid proposition. It makes little intuitive sense to me however.

If the idea is instead to reduce performance disparities between the best funded teams and the least, there is perhaps a better argument to be made for some changes. Perhaps. But the period of relatively stable regulation preceeding Max's hysterical flood of proposed changes began saw the field generally as tightly matched in performance as I can recall F1 ever being. Fiddling with the regulations will inevitably favor the teams with the deepest pockets who can best adapt, whereas regulatory stability, it seems to me, will always tend to even the field as the knowledge of how best to address one set of regulations filters out from the best teams to the others through simple observation and the musical chairs of employees moving among the teams. This leaves the high budget teams spending their money chasing ever smaller incremental gains as all the best and most obvious means of going faster within the stable formula become better understood up and down the paddock.

I think doing nothing would very likely better accomplish the stated goals of cost containment/reducing performance disparities than the proposed changes! Of course that would probably be percieved as indifference to the issues addressed by the silly engine restrictions proposed. And that would of course be politically unpalatable as one must be seen as addressing cost issues even if one isn't, really. Perception, once again, trumps reality.

[Todd]

By mandating displacement and configuration, development costs are reduced because the engine suppliers don't need to investigate alternative configurations. This also prevents the big teams from building V12s for the fast circuits and V8s for the slower ones.

[desmo]

Originally posted by Todd
By mandating displacement and configuration, development costs are reduced because the engine suppliers don't need to investigate alternative configurations. This also prevents the big teams from building V12s for the fast circuits and V8s for the slower ones.

The beauty of not tinkering with the regulations is that questions like, "How many cylinders is optimal for a three liter F1 engine" get answered. And once the answer is known, then it's pretty much a settled question. A V-12 might get you a little more top end HP, but there'll be drawbacks in weight and packaging or fuel ecomony I expect. If one team or another thinks a 12 or a 10 is the best compromise, it won't eviscerate the sport to let them try I guarantee you. The sport survived a long time with 8s and 12s going head to head, remember?

If it made any sense to do two seperate chassis development- never mind engines and tires too, surely you'd have to do all three simultaneously- programs for low and high speed circuits, it would have happened already. As far as I know it's been legal to do so all along provided both specs meet all the relevant regs. I expect you'd get two mediocre at best cars, because the focus necessary to develop and engineer a winning design would be lost. Look what happened to McLaren when they tried to develop two chassis at once. Imagine adding seperate powertrain and tire development loads too!

[Todd]

Originally posted by desmo


The beauty of not tinkering with the regulations is that questions like, "How many cylinders is optimal for a three liter F1 engine" get answered. And once the answer is known, then it's pretty much a settled question. A V-12 might get you a little more top end HP, but there'll be drawbacks in weight and packaging or fuel ecomony I expect. If one team or another thinks a 12 or a 10 is the best compromise, it won't eviscerate the sport to let them try I guarantee you. The sport survived a long time with 8s and 12s going head to head, remember?

If it made any sense to do two seperate chassis development- never mind engines and tires too, surely you'd have to do all three simultaneously- programs for low and high speed circuits, it would have happened already. As far as I know it's been legal to do so all along provided both specs meet all the relevant regs. I expect you'd get two mediocre at best cars, because the focus necessary to develop and engineer a winning design would be lost. Look what happened to McLaren when they tried to develop two chassis at once. Imagine adding seperate powertrain and tire development loads too!

The opening post of this thread asked why the FIA mandated configuration. I answered it. When Toyota was coming into F1, they were developing a V12. If it worked, everyone would have been back to the drawing board. At the same time, simulations were telling Ferrari that a W12 was the way forward. The FIA acted to make V10s standard to prevent the participating manufacturers from all needing to develop new engines, and experiment with different configurations. This did contain costs, one of the few things the FIA ever did that succeeded, unless you were Toyota at least.

As for different engine configurations at different tracks, it has already been done by Ferrari in the mid-'60s. The cars wouldn't need to be different aerodynamically, and the current cars show how ballast can be used for addressing weight distribution issues far larger than the ones caused by switching between two different shaped engines. Besides, Toyota has a several billion dollar battle chest to play with. If they ever had competent management, they could buy Williams and McLaren to develop two different chassis simultaneously.

[Powersteer]

When Honda turn from V10 to V12 the technology was modular. To say that Ferrari lost a whole lot of money switching from V12 to V10 is crazy. Similar engine(probably some added tech) but different dimension. The development that turns into technology is where cost lies so a team won't shoot itself to add or delete one or two cylinders. This is out of the FIA's hands.

Cost cutting rules such as the one engine per race is wierd. If a small team was told to make an engine to last one or two race weekend, competing with the likes of Renault, BMW, Ferrari and Mercedes-Benz they might faint. These smaller teams engine are those that most probably break.

What really cost is when the rule keeps changing and not the cylinders.

[epic1]

Originally posted by McGuire



The regulations will not permit engines with greater than eight cylinders, as the whole idea is to contain costs. Meanwhile, there is no sound reason for the engine manufacturers to even attempt engines of fewer than eight cylinders, as these engines would not be competitive. This is the age of technical convergence. It's not just the rules which make the current cars so strikingly similar and by historical standards, virtually identical to each other. It's also the level of competition and the state of technical development.

Maybe it would be harder for a V-10 to compete with the V-8, but BMW claims that they need a V-10 for marketing reasons. Why not let them try it?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by epic1


Maybe it would be harder for a V-10 to compete with the V-8, but BMW claims that they need a V-10 for marketing reasons. Why not let them try it?

I didn't say that in 2.4 liter form, the V10 would be less competitive than the V8. Quite the contrary: if the displacement limit were lowered to 2.4 liters but V10s were still allowed, the engine mfg'ers would undoubtedly all stay with their V10s. If a V12 were allowed, we would probably even see some of those. Such a 2.4 V10 would be the current 3.0 engine with a shorter stroke, essentially. This engine would certainly make more power over a broader range than a V8 of identical displacement. No long-term cost savings due to reduced component count would be realized, nor would the hp reduction target be met.

As it stands today, the level of technical development is such that under the current 3.0 liter displacement limit a V12 would now outperform the current V10. That's why the V12 was outlawed: to protect the investment in V10 engines.

[desmo]

Originally posted by Todd


The opening post of this thread asked why the FIA mandated configuration. I answered it. When Toyota was coming into F1, they were developing a V12. If it worked, everyone would have been back to the drawing board. At the same time, simulations were telling Ferrari that a W12 was the way forward. The FIA acted to make V10s standard to prevent the participating manufacturers from all needing to develop new engines, and experiment with different configurations. This did contain costs, one of the few things the FIA ever did that succeeded, unless you were Toyota at least.

Yes, the motivating logic of the FIA is plain enough, even if based more on political expedience than engineering reality. Assuming that V12s would have globally outperformed the V10s, a shaky assertion lacking any hard empirical data, what have we gotten since then? That's right, new engines anyway! If one isn't designing fresh engines on a regular basis in F1 one is off the back in any event. Remember, when Renault introduced the V10 it had to compete against V12s, and despite the V12's advantage in smaller reciprocating masses and valve area, the V10 still won out when the entire powertrain-chassis whole was considered. I've got SAE papers written by Ferrari engineers comparing V10 vs V12 designs for F1 and a paper looking at the potential viability of a W12 design as well and the advantages of either of these options are anything but clear cut vs the V10 status quo.

As for different engine configurations at different tracks, it has already been done by Ferrari in the mid-'60s. The cars wouldn't need to be different aerodynamically, and the current cars show how ballast can be used for addressing weight distribution issues far larger than the ones caused by switching between two different shaped engines. Besides, Toyota has a several billion dollar battle chest to play with. If they ever had competent management, they could buy Williams and McLaren to develop two different chassis simultaneously.

I would suggest that the use of differing engine/chassis at Ferrari in the mid-60s was more to do with expedience and driver preference than "horses for courses". Look at results from the period and you'll not only see little rhyme or apparent reason suggesting that the 1512, the 156 and the 158s were chosen based on the venue, you'll also discover that frequently two different chassis/engines were raced at the same GP by the team drivers.

While it seems intuitive that the same basic car couldn't possibly be optimized for, say, both Monza and Monaco, other than perhaps M-B during the '30s and '50s, I could find no example of a team successfully tailoring different cars for low and high speed venues. If any team in the modern era had thought that the idea of developing distinct cars for high and low speed tracks was a good idea, surely they would have done so at some point in the last 30 plus years.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by desmo


I don't think my objections to increasing the restrictions in the technical regulations of the sport are entirely quixotic and naive. I would ask if more restrictive technical regulations necessarily reduce real expenditures. I don't think one can simply posit that as a given. I would expect expenditures to be more a function of the size of a teams budget than whatever technical regulations are enacted. The teams will spend what they can raise in any case surely, if the regulations restrict one sort of development, the monies will simply be inevitably rebudgeted into a field of development that isn't as tightly controlled. When that area is then restricted, the engineers just move down the list to the next item. Anything short of a totally spec chassis, tire and engine formula will always leave ways to spend one's budget seeking a performance advantage. I must be missing something as the idea of further restricting the technical regulations to reduce costs is apparently almost universally unquestioningly accepted as a valid proposition. It makes little intuitive sense to me however.

I didn't say that. I was merely asking you not to shoot the messenger. You are absolutely right that cost containment rules have no effect on what a team at the front of the grid will spend to win. That is entirely a function of the level of funding it can attract.

When properly drawn, cost containment rules keep down the price of admission for the teams further down the grid. The idea is to keep the entry price low enough and the competition halfway close enough to protect their investment and allow them to attract funding as well. While we can't control what teams at the front of the grid can spend, we can place them into the realm of diminishing returns above a certain level of funding. Thus we hope to keep everyone in the game and new players arriving. The best teams will always win, and funding will be always be a major component of that. That is how it should be. After all, we are not communists. But when the bar is placed so high that only the handful of global automakers, the few remaining tobacco companies and the odd oil prince can afford to play, the game itself is in danger.

My definition of professional auto racing is where teams can make money at it. If people lose money at it, it's amateur racing, no matter how grand the spectacle. Racing can no longer be a place where rich people go to lose their money, or where an oil company can finance an entire F1 championship season on a fraction of its advertising budget. Those days are long gone. Now the sport operates on an entirely different economic scale, and it has to start making sense on business grounds or ultimately, it won't survive.

What should a season of F1 cost for a middle of the pack team? How about this: Its actual economic value to the people most liable to step up and pay for it -- a team's potential commercial sponsors. The Madison Avenue people claim that marketing value can be more or less exactly quanitified by the level of exposure in live audience and television viewing eyeballs. Come up with a dollar value figure for that marketing exposure (no cheating or fudging, real value) and then use cost containment rules to target the team budgets to that level of funding. Then we will at least have a business which operates somewhere in the ballpark of a sound cost basis.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by desmo
Yes, the motivating logic of the FIA is plain enough, even if based more on political expedience than engineering reality. Assuming that V12s would have globally outperformed the V10s, a shaky assertion lacking any hard empirical data, what have we gotten since then? That's right, new engines anyway! If one isn't designing fresh engines on a regular basis in F1 one is off the back in any event.

Of course. But in alternate case the new engines would be V12 rather than V10, and proportionately more expensive due to a higher component count. We can argue all day about the macroeconomics of motorsports, but there is no arguing that eight pistons are cheaper than 10, 32 valves are cheaper than 40, etc. Roughly speaking, in switching from V10 to V8, every four engines you have saved enough internal parts (pistons, rods, rings, main and rod bearings, valves, springs, retainers, etc. etc.) to build a fifth. That is a genuine savings which cannot be denied.

If someone devotes the neccesary resources to the project, a 12-cylinder engine can and will obsolete the ten-cylinder engine, whether at 3.0 liters or 2.4 liters. It's simply a question of money. That's what F1 has come down to: not engineering creativity or innovation but simply who can throw the cubic money.

Here is the thing: Racing is an expensive game. There's no denying it. If the racing is competitive, it will get more expensive every season. But that is not to say costs cannot be contained and controlled. To everyone who says cost containment measures can't work: you better hope you are wrong.

[desmo]

Originally posted by McGuire



Of course. But in alternate case the new engines would be V12 rather than V10, and proportionately more expensive due to a higher component count. We can argue all day about the macroeconomics of motorsports, but there is no arguing that eight pistons are cheaper than 10, 32 valves are cheaper than 40, etc. Roughly speaking, in switching from V10 to V8, every four engines you have saved enough internal parts (pistons, rods, rings, main and rod bearings, valves, springs, retainers, etc. etc.) to build a fifth. That is a genuine savings which cannot be denied.

Point taken. At this juncture I must go out of character and admit that the FIA had got one thing pretty much right as far as cost containment at least within a narrow isolated perspective, the mandating of engine longevity. This seems to me a far more elegant and direct means of controlling engine costs than tying the designers' hands and going down the road to spec engines. I'd argue that, naturally, the best resourced teams will take whatever sums are saved and plow them back into other development avenues to some degree at least negating the intended effect of bringing the grid into closer competitive balance. But this will, it seems, likely reduce the costs for all the teams at least as far as engines in isolation. Count one for Max and the FIA there.

If someone devotes the neccesary resources to the project, a 12-cylinder engine can and will obsolete the ten-cylinder engine, whether at 3.0 liters or 2.4 liters. It's simply a question of money. That's what F1 has come down to: not engineering creativity or innovation but simply who can throw the cubic money.

If it were indisputably the case that a 3l- or 2.4l- 12 will outperform a 10 installed in a car and everything considered, then I'd argue that the 10 cylinder engine would never have come into ascendancy over the 12s when both were permitted. And if the 'more cylinders are better' school of engine design philosophy was the whole story, we would have seen 16s sweeping all before them surely at some point when the powers to be were silly enough to permit such a eventuality to occur. A read of Martinelli & Borettis' (going on memory, might have the 2nd name wrong) SAE paper on the pros and cons of the V10 vs V12 configurations for 3l F1 engines will, I think, at least give one pause before making an ideological assumption that a 12 is necessarily a better solution for the current engine formula.

If F1 has come down to a state of "not engineering creativity or innovation but simply who can throw the cubic money", then the solution is to further restrict creativity and innovation? Hmmmmmmm...

Here is the thing: Racing is an expensive game. There's no denying it. If the racing is competitive, it will get more expensive every season. But that is not to say costs cannot be contained and controlled. To everyone who says cost containment measures can't work: you better hope you are wrong.

There is no denying it. There is however surely room for debate on the best means of keeping the lesser funded teams in the sport and reasonably competitive while at the same time maintaining a reasonable philosophical continuity with the past and honoring the traditions that made the sport the "pinnacle of motorsport" in the first place.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by desmo
If it were indisputably the case that a 3l- or 2.4l- 12 will outperform a 10 installed in a car and everything considered, then I'd argue that the 10 cylinder engine would never have come into ascendancy over the 12s when both were permitted.

How many years and hundreds of millions of dollars ago was that? You know that part about how in theory , multiple cylinders make more power, however? Well, if you have enough money there is no however and you can make the theory happen in reality. Time was when a well-executed eight could beat an average or poorly-executed 12 or 16. The Cosworth DFV for instance. In the current state of the art, what are the obstacles to multi-cylinders now? Packaging? Nope. Reliability? Nope. Fuel economy? Nope. Complexity? Nope. Cost? Who cares?

Truth be told, personally I would just once like to see a blank-check, take-no-prisoners, all-out competition among the global automakers, just to see the result. Everything we have seen before would pale in comparison to what they could do if they just once got truly serious. But then it's not about me.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by desmo
If F1 has come down to a state of "not engineering creativity or innovation but simply who can throw the cubic money", then the solution is to further restrict creativity and innovation? Hmmmmmmm...

Seriously, in this stage of the game I don't see how 10 cylinders are any more creative or innovative than eight. It's two more holes. It takes more money but it doesn't really take any more brains.

In my view, we are at a technological logjam both with the current rules structure and our way of thinking about rules altogether. If it were up to me I would throw out the baby and the bathwater and start over. You don't even want to know how I would do it. Gordon Murray and a few others would probably like it but everyone else would think it was ridiculous, and the fans probably wouldn't get it at all.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by desmo
There is no denying it. There is however surely room for debate on the best means of keeping the lesser funded teams in the sport and reasonably competitive while at the same time maintaining a reasonable philosophical continuity with the past and honoring the traditions that made the sport the "pinnacle of motorsport" in the first place.

Absolutely. Plenty of room for debate. I fully recognize that some people sincerely believe that a proper F1 engine must have more than eight cylinders....or more precisely, that the rules should accommodate engine suppliers to make that choice. If they believe that, who am I to argue with them? It just so happens I believe otherwise in this instance...or more precisely, that we really don't have much of a choice anymore.

[zac510]

Would a valve size limit for V10 and a valve size limit for V12 with the aim of similar power output be a reasonable compromise for you guys, to be able to see V8 vs V10 vs V12 on the track?

[angst]

I've been thinking about this, reading the posts here and on RC regarding these reg changes and, much as I do not like them from the perspective of the historical context of F1, in the current economic climate it would seem to be the only solution that could save F1 in the long term.

At the moment the manufacturers, or at least some of them, are willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money to be competitive in F1. The sort of money that 'private' teams could not ever begin to match. If things stay as they are then the smaller teams would fold AND there would be nobody capable/willing to come in and fill the void.

Judging by the history of manufacturer involvement in motorsport, and in particular Grand Prix/F1, they are not going to be hanging around for ever. The first to go will be the losers. The teams that are consistently bottom of the pile. No manufacturer is going to spend millions of dollars to, effectively, promote their rivals cars. Any major downturn in the world ecocnomy would result in a mass exodus, I would imagine. It doesn't look good for a company's image if they are axing jobs at factories across the world to cut costs, while still pumping millions into the development of their F1 car (bad for industrial relations as well).

What if F1 becomes a turn-off, loses it's interest for millions of viewers? The manufacturers use F1 primarily as a marketing tool. Without the viewers there's no need to spend the money for the tiny returns.

Essentially the majority of the motor manufacturers will not be involved, and it will be left to the smaller teams to pick up the pieces. If they are not there then F1 will no longer be.

I agree that if a ten is already mandated then an 8 will not make any difference in terms of innovation. IF any manufacturer(s) leave then that is only really bringing forward the inevitable anyway.

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by McGuire

It is true there is a threshold where friction hp losses overcome the advantages of multiple cylinders. However, a 2.4 liter V8 is nowhere close to this threshold. Its cylinders are 300cc each, the same dimensions as the current F1 V10. With current technology, the friction hp threshold (point of diminishing returns) for a racing V8 is down somewhere around 500cc. For a mass production V8, somewhere around 2.0 liters.

I'm curious, you're telling that "the friction hp threshold in a racing V8 is at 500 cc" and "2.4 L V8 isn't close to this threshold, as it's 300 cc." But isn't it way over this threshold instead? Friction losses increase, when the cylinders get smaller and more numerous, no? How exactly are you looking at this?

Interesting info anyway, what's your source in this?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Big Block 8


I'm curious, you're telling that "the friction hp threshold in a racing V8 is at 500 cc" and "2.4 L V8 isn't close to this threshold, as it's 300 cc." But isn't it way over this threshold instead? Friction losses increase, when the cylinders get smaller and more numerous, no? How exactly are you looking at this?

Interesting info anyway, what's your source in this?

In regard to 300cc, I was referring to the displacement per cylinder for both the current 3000cc V10 as well as the proposed 2400cc V8.

In regard to 500cc, I was referring to total displacement.

We recall Honda built a motorcycle V8 of that capacity in 1979...though the official record will show it was a V4. Honda evaded the rule limiting engines to four cylinders by siamesing the bores at the centerlines and employing ellipsoidal pistons: each bank had two "cylinders," while each "cylinder" had two connecting rods and eight valves. However, this engine can be considered a V8 for our purposes. The engine worked fine, merely down on power vs. the fierce two-strokes which dominated the era. It was said to be capable of over 22,000 rpm. The concept was continued several years later as a 750cc endurance racer and a road version.

In the mid-1960s Honda was very successful with a 250cc 4-stroke six (the RC166: 41mm x 31mm; 60hp@18,000 rpm) which amounts to 42cc per cylinder. In the early 1960s Honda presented a rather seminal paper suggesting there really is no limit up to 24 cylinders or more...for the engine itself. However, there are packaging, weight, and economic considerations.