More controversy surrounding 2014 engines

[P38 in workshop]

I remember the turbos of the 80's and they sounded fine,even if a bit less shrill than the current engines.I also remember murmurings about the switch to normally aspirated engines not having quite the effect on cost reduction that had been desired as each engine consisted of a greater number of parts.A few years later we had the saga of ever more exotic metals being utilised in the pursuit of absurd engine revs.I would expect that the lessons of the last few years regarding surface treatment of components and the pursuit of longer service life should give some good engines.The only slight quibble I have is that I would have liked the FIA to mandate that the engines should be able to start from cold.It would surely help the development of engines for the real world if the heating rigs could be banished.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Clive Brown

Why not get rid of all engine regulations, and simply specify a maximum volume of a spec. fuel with which to complete the race distance?

Just a thought....

Expensive. And the chances are that everyone will end up using the same engine after a season or so. Imagine the shock of most F1 fans if it were revealed that most engine developers had figured out that diesel was the best choice with regard to the volume of fuel allowed. How could you prevent one type of engine becoming the obvious choice just by setting volume limits that the FIA thinks are going to make for differing types of engines being used? This is why these sorts of things usually end up being sorted out by means of parity measures, and usually involve quite a bit of argument. Chances are that the FIA will fiddle about with the fuel volume figures after a few races or the engines will start seeing restrictors of one sort or another being fitted to them. This will inevitably lead to arguments of favouritism, etc. It won't work.

Ah! Sorry! 'Spec fuel', same thing applies. The boffins will work out which engine configuration will be best, even before they start making parts for an engine. And, in the end, everyone will end up using the same configuration that works best after the first season. Either that or they will count their losses and leave F1.

[JeremySmith]

Is Bernie the best judge of how an engine sounds? I would imagine that at his age he would not know the difference..

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I think we need an important distinction here:
Noise = Something that can be unpleasant and hurtful.
Sound = Something that can be beautiful and tuneful.

Racing cars should not necessarily be noisy, but they should sound nice...

IndyCars aren't noisy, but I had a crisis standing in the paddock whenever they had a restart.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Is Bernie the best judge of how an engine sounds? I would imagine that at his age he would not know the difference..

Yeah, that could be, specially when he only hear the sound of $$$$$...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Yeah, that could be, specially when he only hear the sound of $$$$$...

It is said that Bernie can hear the sound of a ten pound note at twenty paces, and the sound of a twenty pound note at forty paces. When he opens a suitcase full of money, it is said that he needs to take a headache remedy.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The turbos of the eighties were not very efficient, they needed a lot of fuel to complete a race distance, and that was one of the reasons for their demise.

The turbo-engines used in the mid-1980s were equally or even more efficient than the contemporary ones, as the FISA limited the fuel tank sizes back then.

[Nicholosophy]

V8 Supercars in Australia use a 85% ethanol blend in their V8s in the name of environmental concerns. I don't see why F1 couldn't look at something similar.

I didn't like the change from V12, or from V10. I won't like the change to the turbos either at first. But I'll still watch because I love the racing.

[nicanary]

Originally Posted by NickoGP

V8 Supercars in Australia use a 85% ethanol blend in their V8s in the name of environmental concerns. I don't see why F1 couldn't look at something similar.

I didn't like the change from V12, or from V10. I won't like the change to the turbos either at first. But I'll still watch because I love the racing.

Exactly. We all will. There's nothing we can do about it, we just have to accept it. Public opinion doesn't mean much if we still tune in/turn up.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by nicanary

Exactly. We all will. There's nothing we can do about it, we just have to accept it. Public opinion doesn't mean much if we still tune in/turn up.

I'll still listen and watch whatever the engine sounds like or the car looks like. They are still the fastest race cars around a circuit, and that won't change.

The only thing that will stop me watching? If it all goes pay TV. That is much more important to the vast majority than looks or sounds.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The turbo-engines used in the mid-1980s were equally or even more efficient than the contemporary ones, as the FISA limited the fuel tank sizes back then.

The turbos benefited from 220 litre tanks much better than the naturally aspirated cars did. You can only meter so much fuel into a naturally aspirated engine, regardless of fuel tank size. Turbo pressure allows more fuel to be burnt, the more of it, the more fuel you can burn. When the tank size was reduced to 150 litres, the difference between the two types of engine was less apparent.

The turbos also benefited from a certain type of fuel that gave more power per litre.

[wnut]

Here's Pepe Jeans the Red Bull Designers' take on the new economy and simplicity of the new turbo engines. Don't know why the interviewer keeps calling him Adrian Newey when his name is on his shirt, but still 4:00 mins into the interview look at his expression when uttering the "economy spiel"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnC-v1UKoHY

More complete interview - Great Stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UmVJTDWkpA

[Marbot]

Err, it is Adrian Newey. Pepe Jeans are a sponsor. Or were you trying to be funny?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Err, it is Adrian Newey. Pepe Jeans are a sponsor. Or were you trying to be funny?

Far out, really, and I thought the whole team were just stealing and wearing Pepe's shirts!

Silly me!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

Far out, really, and I thought the whole team were just stealing and wearing Pepe's shirts!

Silly me!

Err, yeah. Back to the video. Mr Newey had better hope that Renault make his 2014 engine/ERS package more economical than the current engine/KERS package, otherwise they'll be in deep doo doo.

[davyboy]

I'm flabbergasted that he's still using pen, paper and a drawing board...

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The turbos benefited from 220 litre tanks much better than the naturally aspirated cars did. You can only meter so much fuel into a naturally aspirated engine, regardless of fuel tank size. Turbo pressure allows more fuel to be burnt, the more of it, the more fuel you can burn. When the tank size was reduced to 150 litres, the difference between the two types of engine was less apparent.

The turbos also benefited from a certain type of fuel that gave more power per litre.

I somehow miss your point. The mid-1980s turbo-engines consumed equally much or even less fuel than the current breed of naturally-aspirated engines.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by davyboy

I'm flabbergasted that he's still using pen, paper and a drawing board...

I would assume he is more "idea guy" and less "working drawings guy". You don't have to have a computer to express an idea and then have a small army to run off and make it happen.

Richard

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I somehow miss your point. The mid-1980s turbo-engines consumed equally much or even less fuel than the current breed of naturally-aspirated engines.

But they were slower. Even when they turned up the boost for qualifying, they were slower. 1200 plus BHP eats a lot of fuel, wouldn't you say? And you certainly wouldn't get too far on a tankful with that much boost?

[wnut]

Great article introducing "pedal mapping" for anyone that is interested:

http://www.f1technical.net/features/...0cea13bd174c59

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

But they were slower. Even when they turned up the boost for qualifying, they were slower. 1200 plus BHP eats a lot of fuel, wouldn't you say? And you certainly wouldn't get too far on a tankful with that much boost?

slower in a straight line or just inferior aero?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

slower in a straight line or just inferior aero?

If the turbo engine rules were to be the same as those of the eighties for the 2014 season i.e. 220 litres of fuel, multiple turbo's, unlimited engines, etc, there's no way you could have '1.6' litre capacity turbo engines in 2014. Even with an eighties engine fitted in it, the modern F1 cars would be way too fast, in a straight line, and around the corners. So, just technical improvements in general. But particularly with regards to aero and suspension.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

But they were slower.

The total package was indeed slower, as those cars had an higher centre of gravity and reduced stiffness and were less compact.

1200 plus BHP eats a lot of fuel, wouldn't you say? And you certainly wouldn't get too far on a tankful with that much boost?

In 1986 the turbo-engines generated an amount of power in the range of 1,000 to 1,200 bhp with a fuel consumption considerably lower than nowadays.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The total package was indeed slower, as those cars had an higher centre of gravity and reduced stiffness and were less compact.



In 1986 the turbo-engines generated an amount of power in the range of 1,000 to 1,200 bhp with a fuel consumption considerably lower than nowadays.

Fuel tanks are currently around 150 litres from what I can see?

[I Rosputnik]

Originally Posted by davyboy

I'm flabbergasted that he's still using pen, paper and a drawing board...

Traditional design (And art in my case) for the win! I still find it more simple to draw things off screen rather then try to argue with a computer over trying to lay a grid out.

I haven't heard one of the 1.6 turbo's but I don't see the harm in trying them for a few years. If it's sound they are after then go with V12's. (If they were not so impractical.)