F1 2013 - The begining of the end

[rypt]

Yeah, I'd agree. Except for the cost angle. The sport can't afford for one or two rich teams to develop an awesome package and ruin the competition as most won't be able to keep up the development pace.

Developing an awesome hardware package is something that anyone can do though, it is far cheaper than developing an aero package as you don't need the hours of windtunnel time etc ... you just need a good idea.

For instance, the mass damper was cheap to develop and gave a big advantage

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I'd say a 1.6l producing 600 bhp that can last 5 race weekends (2000ish miles) IS the the pinnacle of motorsport - I think it's amazing.

Yes, drag cars have 7000bhp from 7l engines but they have to be stripped down and rebuilt every 30 seconds/half a mile.

 

[rypt]

I'd say a 1.6l producing 600 bhp that can last 5 race weekends (2000ish miles) IS the the pinnacle of motorsport - I think it's amazing.

If I remember correctly Cosworth had reliable high power stuff back in the day, I can't remember if it was their Indy or the F1 engine though

 

[Flibster]

Look at some of the historic racers - 600bhp V10's with 1500km between rebuilds

To 1.6l 4pot's...

 

[Alibaba99]

Developing an awesome hardware package is something that anyone can do though, it is far cheaper than developing an aero package as you don't need the hours of windtunnel time etc ... you just need a good idea.

For instance, the mass damper was cheap to develop and gave a big advantage

Do you think CFD / wind tunnel work is the only analysis that is carried out by an F1 team?

There will be huge amount of time spent on stress analysis for all the engine components, lifing work, linked CFD thermal work for the air, oil and water systems on the engine. Attention paid to minimising loses in all components, reducing weight.

 

[Kenai]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGDgFJY6PBU

They'll probably end up sounding like that

 

[rypt]

Do you think CFD / wind tunnel work is the only analysis that is carried out by an F1 team?

There will be huge amount of time spent on stress analysis for all the engine components, lifing work, linked CFD thermal work for the air, oil and water systems on the engine. Attention paid to minimising loses in all components, reducing weight.

Doesn't matter, all those are not as expensive or time consuming as aero - do to you chasing a very small improvement.

If you are chasing the final few percent of output of engine power, while still staying reliable then yes you will be forced to spend lots of money (ala Mercedes who run several engines 24/7 on the dyno for instance).

If you open up the regs then no-one will bother chasing the final percentage though, as you can gain far more time by doing something else unique. Why have perfect aero when you can just gain another 25hp on the engine side, why gain an extra 5hp when you can do mass dampers that will give you 0.2 of a sec.

 

[sunama]

Why the negativity? It's not as if the 2.4 l NA engines contribute much to the racing. It's quite possible that 600bhp turbo engines with 160bhp KERS could produce better on track action.

This is exciting, state of the art technology. Sounds good to me.

Agreed 100%.

I like bleeding edge technology and as engine tech is now heading towards fuel efficiency, there is no reason why F1 shouldn't adopt engines which are smaller, use less fuel, while offering similar power output.

 

[JRS]

Agreed 100%.

I like bleeding edge technology and as engine tech is now heading towards fuel efficiency, there is no reason why F1 shouldn't adopt engines which are smaller, use less fuel, while offering similar power output.

All well and good. But why are we limiting them to four-banger motors only? What's wrong with having I4s versus V6s versus V8s?

Ferrari make V8 and V12 road cars. So why can't the rulebook allow them to make a small 8 cylinder turbo motor that would actually be useful as a testbed for their road car technology? Renault has a wealth of turbo'd V6 experience - wouldn't it be rather more sane to let them draw on that?

No. Instead, we're getting four cylinder motors for everyone, with mandatory dimensions as well so no variations in bore and stroke. They might as well just get on with it and turn F1 into a spec-racing series. I've no doubt that TPTB will be utterly stunned when everyone gets bored and buggers off....

 

[MissChief]

Let us not forget that 1,6 litre turbo engines are almost a Global Racing Engine. WRC, BTCC and WTCC are also going to 1.6L inline 4 cylinder. how much easier will it be for, say, BMW to create a WTCC/BCC engine when Mini already have one in development for the WRC? Surely then it wouldn't take half as much money to then decide to become an Engine Supplier in F1 as well? If it brings in more manufacturers into F1 as Engine suppliers than it can only be A GOOD THING®

 

[rpstewart]

If it brings in more manufacturers into F1 as Engine suppliers than it can only be A GOOD THING®

But why is it a "good thing"?

In years past more manufacturers meant more innovation and more competition - that can't happen under the new rules. The engines will, as they are now, be defined so strictly that there is no scope for innovation and hence limited competition.

 

[godinman]

I think they should open up the restrictions massively, but give the teams a set budget to spend, not inclusive of salarys.
That way they would be able to innovate all they want, but the smaller, less well off teams would be able to compete with the big boys, using skill and imagination instead of throwing money at it.

 

[Glaucus]

If it brings in more manufacturers into F1 as Engine suppliers than it can only be A GOOD THING®

it wont this is not a cheap spec series, teams still need huge amounts of money and waste millions on aerodynamics to gain that 0.001seconds advantage. This is going to ailinate even more sponsors than the last 5-10 years. f1 should be a testbed, when it's a test bed companies will sponsor the research and get the PR they already do.
No development, means the only thing companies get is PR from sponsorship, they get not tangible products.
Now the only way to bring new teams into f1 when it is not used as a test bed, is to make it so cheap, it is run as a same spec series and every man and his dog can enter.
Or you look at the way the world is going and make the rules accordingly.
No restriction on engines or turbos/sc, but only aloud 75litres of fuel per race, use that fuel as best you can, every 2 years it's reduced by 10litres or something.
Kers again should be totally unrestricted.
should be provisons in the rules for fuel cell powered electric cars and other new emerging systems.

Then you will see money and expertise flocking back to F1. Just look at what companies like honda are doing in the real world. For those who say theres not enough money, there is. They can use there £200mill however they see fit, they already spend millions on aero, that can be shifted to engine design. New sponsors will come in as well. It's all about using your finances for the best outcome.

 

[MissChief]

Personally I'd love to see them spec a set amount of fuel and a spec fuel pump to control how much fuel can be used them let them do what ever they like. 4 Cylinder inline, V6, Boxer 8, V12, Rotary, doesn't matter. As long as it doesn't use more fuel then the set amount and doesn't burn fuel faster than the fuel pump can deliver, then great.

Open it up to say KERS can be used, then make it so unless the Kers is very good they'll have to turn the power and revs down to make it to the end of the race. The Kers development will come and the engine development will also come.

 

[Alibaba99]

Personally I'd love to see them spec a set amount of fuel and a spec fuel pump to control how much fuel can be used them let them do what ever they like. 4 Cylinder inline, V6, Boxer 8, V12, Rotary, doesn't matter. As long as it doesn't use more fuel then the set amount and doesn't burn fuel faster than the fuel pump can deliver, then great.

Open it up to say KERS can be used, then make it so unless the Kers is very good they'll have to turn the power and revs down to make it to the end of the race. The Kers development will come and the engine development will also come.

So the big teams will just build an i4, v6, v8 etc, spending loads of money, and do loads of testing to discover which will be the best suited. The smaller teams will have to guess which will be better and then if they find they've got it wrong have to spend even more money that they don't have to sort things out.

The current engine rules allow the engine to be pretty much put into any other car due to the restrictions on crank height, bolting patterns, CofG position, bore spacing etc. Running lots of different engine specs won't really work with that.

 

[rypt]

So the big teams will just build an i4, v6, v8 etc, spending loads of money, and do loads of testing to discover which will be the best suited. The smaller teams will have to guess which will be better and then if they find they've got it wrong have to spend even more money that they don't have to sort things out.

The current engine rules allow the engine to be pretty much put into any other car due to the restrictions on crank height, bolting patterns, CofG position, bore spacing etc. Running lots of different engine specs won't really work with that.

Engine development is not as expensive as you think unless you are really pushing the boundaries

 

[Participant]

The pinnacle of motorsport should be pushing the technology, pushing the R&D. That absolutely does not mean large capacity NA engines. That technology is decades old, is heavy and inefficient. If that's what you like, great, but maybe you should be watching some form of historic racing. F1 is moving forward, another decade or two we might even see an all-electric top flight series. The R&D going into KERS etc is what will deliver that future.

Everyone loves the sight and sound of a Spitfire, everyone also recognises it as a bit of history. Same will be true of large capacity NA engines.

I absolutely agree with this.

 

[Housey]

Well having gone from the era of the DFV and V12's, through to 1.5 turbo's and back to NA screamers I can honestly say other than the sound the spectacle never really changed that much, actually it was probably at its best during the 1.5L turbo era come to think of it. Most of the people in this thread seem to know little about the history of the sport or have experience of a fully tweaked turbo car on a qualifying lap, I remind you in the 80's at their peak they were running 1400bhp in qualifying without the aid of traction control or the silly aero of the modern era.

Sadly I do think 600bhp, even 750bhp is not enough, not with modern aero and THIS is where the problem lies. Great racing does not need massive power, sure it adds to the spectacle but if you have 1000bhp on cars that run on rails it is still crap. I fear the engines are one problem and you lot, sadly, can only listen to people like me harping on about the olden days (a relative term) and you will simply never appreciate how great it was compared to todays motorsport.

An F1 car has always been spectacular in my lifetime, always the pinnacle of the sport and even with 1.6L 4 pots I suspect nothing out there will get close to an F1 laptime, but sadly laptimes are not motorsport, racing is motorsport and to me if they can't deliver that I don't give a stuff what engines they run for I will never be interested in lines of cars lapping a few seconds apart, occasionally overtaking a back marker.

 

[Dutch Guy]

An F1 car has always been spectacular in my lifetime, always the pinnacle of the sport and even with 1.6L 4 pots I suspect nothing out there will get close to an F1 laptime, but sadly laptimes are not motorsport, racing is motorsport and to me if they can't deliver that I don't give a stuff what engines they run for I will never be interested in lines of cars lapping a few seconds apart, occasionally overtaking a back marker.

The problem today is that th aero is so good that a lot of corners like Eau Rouge required skill but are flatout now.

IMO F1 is too safe these days.

 

[godinman]

Well, they've got the crash safety to a hugely high standard, so if they did drop the tyres and aero back to 1970's spec I doubt they'd actually have more injuries and deaths, just more bent cars.