Sebastian Vettel
- Thread starter smr
- Start date
Soldato
The most funny thing about the turbo F1 engines is that BMW liked to make the F1 engines from used production car blocks as they were already tested and if they would break would have done so already. (never did figure out if ths story is true or not)
Soldato
The BMW M12 racing engine was indeed based on the M10 production motor.
sunama - strapping a socking great turbocharger to an engine does tend to boost power output somewhat
***edit***
Figures for the BMW engine at the bottom of this page. In the '86 Benetton they ran around 5.5 bar of boost - nearly 80 psi.
sunama - strapping a socking great turbocharger to an engine does tend to boost power output somewhat
***edit***
Figures for the BMW engine at the bottom of this page. In the '86 Benetton they ran around 5.5 bar of boost - nearly 80 psi.
Last edited:
Soldato
Wouldn't a big turbo with lots of boost give a horrible power delivery?
Something like no power, no power, no power and then instantly 1000+BHP
Something like no power, no power, no power and then instantly 1000+BHP
Soldato
Little bit peaky, yeah. You can see the dyno plot on that page I linked, and that's in rather more conservative tune than 1000+bhp.
Lunatic power curves, manual gearboxes, absolutely no traction control beyond the accelerator pedal....shame we can't get back to that.
Lunatic power curves, manual gearboxes, absolutely no traction control beyond the accelerator pedal....shame we can't get back to that.
Wouldn't a big turbo with lots of boost give a horrible power delivery?
Something like no power, no power, no power and then instantly 1000+BHP
Don't forget that F1 cars don't need to pull away at 1000rpm like a road car
massive revs help spool turbos and unless you missed a gear I doubt you would be out of boost much
Soldato
Yeah, I forgot that F1 cars work >7000rpm anyway, even the Dyno print starts at 7000rpm.
Impossible, due to safety concerns. Imagine a driver having a crash on a straight, at 300mph. It doesn't bare thinking about.
Caporegime
He's 23...?
I personally like Vettel, so what if he waves his finger, what about Alonso crying to Petrov at the end of Abu-Dhabi? Alonso is far more annoying. Vettel comes across well on and off the track for me. Anyone that has a problem with him must hate everyone.
Last edited:
Soldato
With F1 being the pinnacle of motorsport I would have expected downsizing with turbos to be introduced before they would be used on road cars.
If they limit the engine size and maximum boost they can control the power of the engines anyway, they can force them to use 1300CC engines with a maximum of 2 bar for instance.
If you add turbos or any other means of boosting sustained power output speeds will rise. After the deaths of Ratzenberger and Senna in 1994, the FIA has been doing everything possible to reduce the speeds which F1 cars reach. This has helped greatly to increase safety.
Should the FIA limit the engine size (less powerful engines), but allow turbos, I'm not sure what the point of this exercise would be? In one instant you are reducing power and then immediately afterwards, you are giving the engines extra power (turbos). Perhaps I am missing something here?
If you boost power output, on some tracks (like Monza or Hockenheim), there will be no question that the cars will be setup for optimum top speed. This will mean using long gear ratios, minimum wings, etc. The added engine power, will definitely lead to higher top speeds on the fastest parts of the track.
On a track like Hungary or Monaco, where high cornering speed is desirable: a more powerful engine will allow for higher cornering speed.
In both the above scenarios, by increasing power output, you are increasing speeds. When you increase speeds, you increase the likelihood of injury in the event of a crash.
Since 1994, safety has become a major factor when deciding the direction that F1 development should take.
The trend over the last few years seems to be that F1 cars have a top speed of around 200mph. Obviously, the FIA deem this to be acceptable. With this in mind, I can see engines getting smaller and perhaps becoming less powerful with time.
Should the FIA limit the engine size (less powerful engines), but allow turbos, I'm not sure what the point of this exercise would be? In one instant you are reducing power and then immediately afterwards, you are giving the engines extra power (turbos). Perhaps I am missing something here?
If you boost power output, on some tracks (like Monza or Hockenheim), there will be no question that the cars will be setup for optimum top speed. This will mean using long gear ratios, minimum wings, etc. The added engine power, will definitely lead to higher top speeds on the fastest parts of the track.
On a track like Hungary or Monaco, where high cornering speed is desirable: a more powerful engine will allow for higher cornering speed.
In both the above scenarios, by increasing power output, you are increasing speeds. When you increase speeds, you increase the likelihood of injury in the event of a crash.
Since 1994, safety has become a major factor when deciding the direction that F1 development should take.
The trend over the last few years seems to be that F1 cars have a top speed of around 200mph. Obviously, the FIA deem this to be acceptable. With this in mind, I can see engines getting smaller and perhaps becoming less powerful with time.
That's a tad patronising isn't it? Not to mention the fact that Red Bull have consistently (and rightly, imo) gone out of their way to stress that they don't have a number one and number two driver.
Patronising...in what way?
Horner has stressed that there is no No.1/No.2 policy in place. Yet Webber seems to think otherwise...why do you think that is? Could it be because in Turkey, he was asked to turn down his car settings, to allow Vettel to make the pass? Could it be that after Webber and Vettel had the crash, RBR management (initially), blamed Webber? Could it be that in one of the races (I can't remember which), Vettel damaged his top spec front wing and rather than fit Vettel's car with the older front wing, they took the top spec front wing from Webber's car and gave it to Vettel, while Webber had to make do with the old spec front wing?
I'm sure there are many other points, but you get my drift.
There is absolutely no question in my mind that RBR feel that Vettel is their future (and I would not disagree with them) and that in order to get the most points for the team, they feel it best to give Vettel preferential treatment (ie. he is their No.1).
I think a lot of people seem to feel that operating a No.1/No.2 driver policy is bad. It is not. This is F1 and invariably, 1 driver will get preferential treatment. The only time this doesn't happen is when the 2 drivers are very equal in ability and contractually, both drivers agree to drive as equals. This happened with Senna and Prost, when they drove together. And I believe that Mansell's contract for 1993 (with Williams) would've had the stipulation of driving as Prost's equal. Prost also stated in an interview in 1993, that he did not make the request that Mansell drive as his No.2.
Put it this way. If I was in F1 and I realised that I was not of the same calibre as my team-mate, I would have no problems if he received preferential treatment. In general, the best candidates (for any job) are the ones who get the best jobs (usually) and the best contracts. Football is a good example, where the top players in their respective positions, get paid the highest salaries and are given more starts than their inferior (in ability) team-mates. In sport and in life this is quite normal.
Horner has stressed that there is no No.1/No.2 policy in place. Yet Webber seems to think otherwise...why do you think that is? Could it be because in Turkey, he was asked to turn down his car settings, to allow Vettel to make the pass? Could it be that after Webber and Vettel had the crash, RBR management (initially), blamed Webber? Could it be that in one of the races (I can't remember which), Vettel damaged his top spec front wing and rather than fit Vettel's car with the older front wing, they took the top spec front wing from Webber's car and gave it to Vettel, while Webber had to make do with the old spec front wing?
I'm sure there are many other points, but you get my drift.
There is absolutely no question in my mind that RBR feel that Vettel is their future (and I would not disagree with them) and that in order to get the most points for the team, they feel it best to give Vettel preferential treatment (ie. he is their No.1).
I think a lot of people seem to feel that operating a No.1/No.2 driver policy is bad. It is not. This is F1 and invariably, 1 driver will get preferential treatment. The only time this doesn't happen is when the 2 drivers are very equal in ability and contractually, both drivers agree to drive as equals. This happened with Senna and Prost, when they drove together. And I believe that Mansell's contract for 1993 (with Williams) would've had the stipulation of driving as Prost's equal. Prost also stated in an interview in 1993, that he did not make the request that Mansell drive as his No.2.
Put it this way. If I was in F1 and I realised that I was not of the same calibre as my team-mate, I would have no problems if he received preferential treatment. In general, the best candidates (for any job) are the ones who get the best jobs (usually) and the best contracts. Football is a good example, where the top players in their respective positions, get paid the highest salaries and are given more starts than their inferior (in ability) team-mates. In sport and in life this is quite normal.
Soldato
would have won it 10 races in.
Hehehe.
For my own selfish reasons, I would love to see Alonso and Hamilton in the same car, driving as team mates. Unfortunately, this will never happen again.
For all the resources available to Ferrari and McLaren (including arguably the best drivers in F1), they just can't seem to compete against RedBull.
RBR have had the best car for the last 18 months, so what they have achieved during this time is not a flash in the pan (as was the case with Brawn GP).
If I were McLaren or Ferrari, I would be extremely jealous of RBR.
I definitely read something about the reduction in engine sizes, but can't remember any mention of turbos.
Surely though, if the FIA want to improve fuel consumption (and this would be an excellent idea), they can place new rules which stipulate the maximum fuel allowable per race. Then allow engine suppliers to develop their engines. This should kick start a fuel economy drive and could well lead to technology which can be transferred to road cars.
Surely though, if the FIA want to improve fuel consumption (and this would be an excellent idea), they can place new rules which stipulate the maximum fuel allowable per race. Then allow engine suppliers to develop their engines. This should kick start a fuel economy drive and could well lead to technology which can be transferred to road cars.
I highly doubt it will continue next year. Purely because of the running Mercedes Mclaren and Ferrari have already had with Kers. The renault system was so poor they ditched it, where Ferrari and Mclaren with mercedes plugged away and made the best of it.
I will be amazed if the cars finishing each race are anything like as reliable as this year or Kers systems will be breaking all the time.
Ferrari, Merc and macca are about to get some payback for what they invested in Kers. Not only that it's widely reported that the renault engine is down on power to the rest, over come partly with some fantastic aero on the redbull. They now have to mess with the balance with the added weight of a Kers system, something other teams already have some experience of.