Mansell is spot on

Skeeter · 11 Jul 2015 at 22:58

Amazing that when people moan about engines this and engines that, and then state they want to see a return to machines of old...

...and they pick a McLaren MP4/4, that used a 1.5 litre turbo V6! And a Honda one at that!

You could not have picked a more similar engine from history!

(The 2m wide, simpler front wing and fat tyres part are all really good points though, but that doesn't help me make my point

)

Duke · 12 Jul 2015 at 08:37

JRS said:
Indeed, because that's exactly the same thing as wanting to see F1 cars that have room for development.

SonniLombardi · 12 Jul 2015 at 09:54

Skeeter said:
Amazing that when people moan about engines this and engines that, and then state they want to see a return to machines of old...

...and they pick a McLaren MP4/4, that used a 1.5 litre turbo V6! And a Honda one at that!

You could not have picked a more similar engine from history!

(The 2m wide, simpler front wing and fat tyres part are all really good points though, but that doesn't help me make my point )

Honda engine at that? :confused:

It was the Honda ~~RA168-E~~ RA166-E, one of the most successful engines ever built for Formula 1, 1.5 litre yes, but twin turbo, AND it produced 950 bhp :eek:

(only that much power was used for qualifying)

It was one of the most dominant F1 cars ever...
Manual box, no driver aids, F1 will never be the same as it was back then, today's sophisticated technology has killed mostly everything, the talent, the skills, the pleasure of watching.. the magic has gone.

I was lucky enough to visit the McLaren factory as a young boy with a school trip, I remember it very well, they had all their F1 cars lined up in a showroom It was fantastic.

Little bit of history:

Great Top Gear video with Hamilton getting a drive in it... even he understands how magical this car is and how watered down and different cars are today.

Ok I'm rambling...

Skeeter · 12 Jul 2015 at 15:13

Firstly, I never tried to claim it wasn't a dominant engine?

And Secondly, modern F1 has hardly any more 'driver aids' than then anyway. No traction control, no ABS, (semi) manual gearboxes...

So yes, you are rambling.

My point is that people complain that a 1.6 litre V6 turbo engine is 'not F1', and support that by claiming cars like the MP4/4 are better, which used a 1.5 litre V6 turbo. They even sound similar!

MagicBoy · 12 Jul 2015 at 15:24

SonniLombardi said:
It was the Honda RA168-E, one of the most successful engines ever built for Formula 1, 1.5 litre yes, but twin turbo, AND it produced 950 bhp (could reach 1200 bhp) (only that much power was used for qualifying)

Er. No it didn't. The RA168 was the 1988 engine, limited to 2.5bar boost therefore about 650bhp.

Honda would design a new F1 engine for each season in that era. The big power engines were 1986, before the FIA imposed a boost limit of 4 bar in 1987 and 2.5 bar in 1988 to disadvantage the turbo engines and encourage teams to transition to the 1989 onwards 3.5L N/A engines.

SonniLombardi · 12 Jul 2015 at 18:14

MagicBoy said:
Er. No it didn't. The RA168 was the 1988 engine, limited to 2.5bar boost therefore about 650bhp.

Honda would design a new F1 engine for each season in that era. The big power engines were 1986, before the FIA imposed a boost limit of 4 bar in 1987 and 2.5 bar in 1988 to disadvantage the turbo engines and encourage teams to transition to the 1989 onwards 3.5L N/A engines.

Yeah you're right, it was the RA166-E power plant that had the big power 1986 era.

SonniLombardi · 12 Jul 2015 at 18:28

Skeeter said:
Firstly, I never tried to claim it wasn't a dominant engine?

And Secondly, modern F1 has hardly any more 'driver aids' than then anyway. No traction control, no ABS, (semi) manual gearboxes...

So yes, you are rambling.

My point is that people complain that a 1.6 litre V6 turbo engine is 'not F1', and support that by claiming cars like the MP4/4 are better, which used a 1.5 litre V6 turbo. They even sound similar!

Manual gears? they change gear on the steering wheel with the push of a button and no clutch.. the older generation had a gear stick and a clutch, ok they still have clutches but only used when moving from standstill.
DRS
KERS

Ok some people disregard the new era of engines, I do agree the V10/V12's were glorious, but when I said the Honda engines produced back in the 80's were better.. the V6 engines now rely on electric batteries to get the power up to 800bhp, and the RPM's are lower compared to older generations as well.

Today's F1 cars are slower than the older generations, this is a fact.

MagicBoy · 12 Jul 2015 at 18:52

Todays F1 is intended to be slower - it's the way the formula is designed. In the 80s pretty much anything went and power more than doubled in less than 10 years. The FIA decreed to "tame the turbos" in 1986 after the Group B accidents in Rallying and Elio de Angelis death in F1 testing.

As regards the technology, the 1000bhp+ 80s turbo cars were running on special brew "rocket" fuels that had no resemblance to what came out of a pump. As long as it was under the octane limit you were golden. Some were running primarily a gelled form of toluene in the big power years. Modern F1 runs on fuel that is 99% the same as what comes out of a pump on your local forecourt.

As regards RPMs - the current formula is based around fuel flow rate and recovering power via the hybrid systems. With the fuel flow limit the engines develop peak power at 11-12k rpm and there's no benefit running them higher coupled with an 8-speed transmission.

SonniLombardi · 12 Jul 2015 at 19:15

MagicBoy said:
Todays F1 is intended to be slower - it's the way the formula is designed. In the 80s pretty much anything went and power more than doubled in less than 10 years. The FIA decreed to "tame the turbos" in 1986 after the Group B accidents in Rallying and Elio de Angelis death in F1 testing.

As regards the technology, the 1000bhp+ 80s turbo cars were running on special brew "rocket" fuels that had no resemblance to what came out of a pump. As long as it was under the octane limit you were golden. Some were running primarily a gelled form of toluene in the big power years. Modern F1 runs on fuel that is 99% the same as what comes out of a pump on your local forecourt.

As regards RPMs - the current formula is based around fuel flow rate and recovering power via the hybrid systems. With the fuel flow limit the engines develop peak power at 11-12k rpm and there's no benefit running them higher coupled with an 8-speed transmission.

Thanks for that, I have learnt a few things with your post, I was aware they used different fuel but never knew it was toulene.. I know about Group B etc as I am big rally fan at heart too.

In regards to Angelis death, the Brabham BT55 was flawed anyway, in which the way the engine was positioned, oil problems, and the way the air that was getting to the rear wing, what a beautiful looking car though.. you have to admit! That's Gordon Murray for you.

My point was by me saying "better" back then, I meant it as in they were faster and outrageous back then, it was the driver and machine with raw undiluted power. I really should have used an alternative word to "better" but that is my take on them, as I preferred them over todays cars.

MagicBoy · 12 Jul 2015 at 19:33

OK, now you've qualified better I get what you are saying.

Going off on a slight tangent - the '88 McLaren MP4/4 mentioned earlier today was the next step in the BT55 lowline concept after Gordon Murray went to McLaren in '87. The BT55 biggest problem was the inline-4 BMW engine which was tall compared to the V6s that most other manufacturers were producing. Tilted it over is a simple idea but had all sorts of knock on effects. The Honda didn't have that problem.