"Our attempts to make Formula One greener is ruining the sport" - Bernie Ecclestone
- Thread starter Spie
- Start date
Look, I'm not against hybrid technology, but they incorporated it into a large capacity V8 or V12 engine. That''s the difference.
So back to my question. Why did McLaren and Porsche choose V8 and Ferrari V12 configurations?
So back to my question. Why did McLaren and Porsche choose V8 and Ferrari V12 configurations?
To be "carbon neutral" is not actually that difficult. It is to some extent just a way for businesses to boast, and can be achieved by buying carbon offsets and not actually doing anything differently.
e.g. "I will pay you an offset equivalent to planting 10,000 trees, because that's what I estimate my annual carbon footprint is"..."ok, here's your badge, you're carbon neutral, buddy!"..."cool".
Of course the biggest businesses will change processes, but you only have to look at how many trucks the F1 use to haul the equipment, and the thought of 30% more fuel efficient engines seem to pale in to insignificance
Fuel efficiency of engines should not be confused with the aim of lowering costs in the sport.
Hauling 20 trucks worth of equipment around the world to each race pales into insignificance with the cost required to develop the engines that deliver 30% fuel saving.
Actually, only to the last couple of years of the V10's.
Hondas in particular were capable of producing in excess of 1000bhp. They tended to run that as a special Suzuka-spec engine.
Majority of them that year were hovering around 950bhp for most of the time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 3,053
- Location
- ireland
I agree with u i'm not against hybrid technology it is strange F1 went to a V6 seeing as all the super car companies are still making mostly V8's. The V12 probably wont be around for much longer as the EU restrictions on co2 emissions makes it harder for them every year to make them.
The Aventador has to start in full auto or else it wouldn't be road legal in Europe for example. F1 shouldn't be compromised for green peace etc it spoils the racing. The objective should be to make the racing as exciting as possible while using the latest technologies.
Looking at it the other way the v6 is the optimum for a small capacity race engine.
Once Audi decided that they didn't want to do F1 the planned i4s could be dropped (for both structural and packaging issues) and 8 cylinders starts causing issues with thermodynamic efficiency as the surface area of the cylinders and pistons starts increasing.
For the same reason Ford, Renault, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, VAG, etc use I4 turbos. Because its what there road customers want.
Exactly. They want the highest performing engine. So why are F1 cars using V6s?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 15,645
- Location
- The land of milk & beans
Because Ferrari didn't want I4s.
A lot of the current high-performance engines are V8/V12 because there is a lot of engineering experience behind those engines.
While I don't disagree that V6 engines are an odd choice, in the current regulations the actual engine configuration doesn't really matter too much - it is more about the 'hybridisation' of the engine than the engine itself. V6 engines are an irrelevance but Ferrari wouldn't stick around with I4 engines, so we are where we are.
Expect to see monster hybrids coming out as the F1 tech trickles through - cars with MEGA power that smash the efficiency and pollution requirements set by the EU.
While I don't disagree that V6 engines are an odd choice, in the current regulations the actual engine configuration doesn't really matter too much - it is more about the 'hybridisation' of the engine than the engine itself. V6 engines are an irrelevance but Ferrari wouldn't stick around with I4 engines, so we are where we are.
Expect to see monster hybrids coming out as the F1 tech trickles through - cars with MEGA power that smash the efficiency and pollution requirements set by the EU.
The v6's arent really an odd choice although a v4 would have also made sense like has been used in the porsche 919 race car. The v config allows the engine to be a structural part of the car where as the I4 would have needed some sort of subframe. The v6 is a comprimise in complexity and packaging, the extra length a v12 would need would make packaging the ers systems and turbo more difficult and it would be for nothing just adding complexity.
There aren't any super / hyper cars with a 1.6 engine either.
Optimum cylinder capacity is around 300-500cc. A v8 of 1.6ltr would drop below this and you end up with excessive cylinder surface area compared to its volume and so heat losses increase. This decreases the efficiency of the engine (not something desirable in this current era). 8s and 12s would also be longer and heavier than the 6.
As there is a rev limit you won't gain from the ability of a 8 or 12 to rev higher either in the pursuit of power.
Exactly. V6 turbo engines are simply not relevant in hyper sports car terms.
I think the issue is that as long as we have teams with commercial interests in road car technology, we are going to see pressure for F1's regulations to have relevance to that. Of course, the regulations could be forced, but then you'd run the risk of a large-scale withdrawal from the sport, which could impact it more than the current fan disliking of the engines.
It's been that way for years, though (with the exception of the fuel flow rate). Personally, I'd love to see a relatively open formula, but in order for it to be viable for more than a couple of teams, some kind of strict budget cap would need to be in-place. Sadly, I don't see that happening.
I think we're beyond the point where we could go back without causing catastrophic damage to the sport. We would risk losing at least two of the four engine manufacturers and it would likely kill off interest from any of the companies who have expressed interest so far, unfortunately. I can't recall the last time any company, whether a big manufacturer that deals with regular road cars (e.g. VAG) or a specialist sports car manufacturer showed any interest in the old V8 formula.
That being said, the idea of trying to appear to be green is something I don't agree with in itself, because 22 cars have little to no impact in the grand scheme of things, and it is minute when compared to all of the transportation of equipment around the world.
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
You mistook my point.
I am not saying the 30% fuel saving is directly proportionate to lowering costs... I was simply replying to Glaucus regarding his point about F1 being "carbon neutral".
Put a 600cc engine in the cars, but don't claim that it's for "green" reasons when you're using 20+ HGVs to haul the equipment around after them
I dont think they are trying to be green directly, i mean they dont have catalytic converters or other emission control tech on them, the effect is indirect as the tech trickles down, the impact will be much larger than any direct effect they could have.