More controversy surrounding 2014 engines

[wolfhound]

Adrian Newey has been talking about F1 rules and how restrictive they are becoming. The main culprits seem to be his fellow engineers requesting the FIA to tighten rules at technical meetings along with the FIA themselves. He has a fear of the rules moving to GP1.

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/187363/...low_start.html

[wnut]

Thanks Wolfhound.

This should be on the wall at the FIA, for their reference every time a restrictive rule is even contemplated.


“We should be careful that the rules don't restrict the inventive spirit,” he said. “The beauty of Formula One is the struggle of man against man but also machine against machine. There is something for every interest. The more stringent the rules are, the faster we move towards 'GP1'. Do we want that? I'm surprised how many of my colleagues at the meetings of the technical working group make the case for more restrictions. It's almost as if we are letting the turkeys vote for Christmas."
Adrian Newey from: http://www.crash.net/f1/news/187363/...low_start.html
posted by Wolfhound

[Marbot]

Perhaps Newey's call for less restrictions would mean that Vettel wins more championships, and by some margin. Who wouldn't vote for that?

If you applied less restrictive regulations to engines, how could you do that, and how would you stop engine manufacturers from leaving if their particular engine type/configuration turned out to be not competitive?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Perhaps Newey's call for less restrictions would mean that Vettel wins more championships, and by some margin. Who wouldn't vote for that?

If you applied less restrictive regulations to engines, how could you do that, and how would you stop engine manufacturers from leaving if their particular engine type/configuration turned out to be not competitive?

When Renault joined originally with their Turbos, they certainly stuck it out for a long time! A proper manufacturer would just change the engine configuration and keep at it, that is what made F1 great.
This spec formula isn't worth the money!
Good racing, but no relevant development other than aero.

[Oldtony]

As long as F1 tries to run a Drivers Championship and a Constructors Championship it is stuck with the compromise that prevents it doing either properly.
The balance tends to swing between driving and engineering from time to time. At present the pendulum is firmly at the Driver dominated end but there is some hope of seeing it swing back in 2014 with the new regs.
Really they should be entirely seperate, but with the cult of personality as it stands at present the "egos in helmets" attract better TV ratings so that is the way it is regulated.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

When Renault joined originally with their Turbos, they certainly stuck it out for a long time! A proper manufacturer would just change the engine configuration and keep at it, that is what made F1 great.

You must surely remember that, at one point during the turbo era, Cosworth were providing 80% of the field with their ubiquitous DFV engines, such was the lack of affordable turbo charged alternatives, including its own.

Renault was a car maker intent on making its engine work to support the marketing of many of its turbo road cars at that time. Pretty much every model in the range had a variant with a turbo bolted to its engine. For that, it was probably worth the effort.

Originally Posted by wnut

This spec formula isn't worth the money!
Good racing, but no relevant development other than aero.

Relevant development, in what respect? Turbos?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

As long as F1 tries to run a Drivers Championship and a Constructors Championship it is stuck with the compromise that prevents it doing either properly.
The balance tends to swing between driving and engineering from time to time. At present the pendulum is firmly at the Driver dominated end but there is some hope of seeing it swing back in 2014 with the new regs.
Really they should be entirely seperate, but with the cult of personality as it stands at present the "egos in helmets" attract better TV ratings so that is the way it is regulated.

Many is the time that I have moaned about driver related threads clogging up the forum.

I don't see any hope of that changing, either.

You can guarantee that what is most loathed about the drivers championship these days is that the driver who regularly wins the championship invariably has the best car. The best car! There was a time when "the best car" would lap the entire field, and not merely finish just a few seconds ahead of its rivals!

[Oldtony]

I suppose that a designer, no matter what his genius, is not as glamorous a figure as a driver.
A few have become familiar names to the general public, Porsche, Chapman, Cooper and these days Newey is achieving a deserved level of recognition.
I would however suggest that names like Jano, Colombo, Lampredi, Forgheri, Costin, Duckworth, Irving, Tauranac, Postletwaite, Barnard, Brawn, Head, and Murray deserve to be as famous as F1 driving champions.
Most of those names are known by real F1 enthusiasts, but would be totaly unfimiliar to a lot of fans who can talk endlessly about the drivers of various eras.
Celebrity in many ways does not equate with value.

[wolfhound]

I would like to see the regs opened up to allow for innovation even if they are targeted at specific areas.

I think the best way to put a cap on things would be a limit on the amount of money that can be spent.

There was a time when you could recognise most of the grid if the cars were all painted white now I doubt it.
I dont like the idea of teams using cars supplied by other constructors except maybe for brand new teams for 2 or 3 years to allow them to build their profile and sponsors etc. It would be necessary to define a team properly so that they cannot come back in year for as another new team.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I think the best way to put a cap on things would be a limit on the amount of money that can be spent.

Unless the FIA are going to create a massive Palmer-type series, and destroy the teams participtation, I have no idea how a cap can be enforced.

[Marbot]

I just love this stuff about engines, particularly stuff about the old turbo engines.

http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_artic...-6-engine.aspx

1,000 bhp + ! , but you wouldn't get too far on the 100 kgs of fuel that's proposed for the 2014 turbo engines. You wouldn't get too far into the season with just 5 engines, either!

[Oldtony]

Great reading Marbot. Thanks.
I think it goes to indicate the contribution made by graet F1 engineers that isn't recognised.
Really Costin and Duckworth's contribution to the advancement of auto engineering, and their inspirational design concepts, contributed more to the "real world" than say Senna and Schumacher.
But they get nowhere near the recognition.
And there are blokes working away at Renault, Ferrari, Mercedes and all the teams who are leading technology now but we will only get to hear about in limited circulation articles years down the track.
Meanwhile we are stuck with wall to wall coverage of Lewis's girlfriends or what Marko is saying about Webber!!!!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Meanwhile we are stuck with wall to wall coverage of Lewis's girlfriends or what Marko is saying about Webber!!!!

Yes, we are certainly living in an era where celebrity is everything. On the other hand, we may also be living in an era where road cars are getting too complicated. Lift the bonnet on a modern road car, and you'll struggle to point out which bit does what, and that's assuming that you aren't first defeated in doing so by the now ubiquitous plastic engine cover. Technology is great, but not just for the sake of having it.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Yes, we are certainly living in an era where celebrity is everything. On the other hand, we may also be living in an era where road cars are getting too complicated. Lift the bonnet on a modern road car, and you'll struggle to point out which bit does what, and that's assuming that you aren't first defeated in doing so by the now ubiquitous plastic engine cover. Technology is great, but not just for the sake of having it.

Agreed!

"Technology is great, but not just for the sake of having it."

90% of this rubbish I don't even want.

Blue tooth, GPS maps (always need updates), ABS, Traction Control, Dynamic Stability Control, plastic engine cover, irritating bongy thing, cup holder, blue tooth, idrive, sport mode, run flat tyres, electric windows, electric seats, electric steering, self activating lights, self dipping lights, auto anti-glare mirror, parking sensors (stupid thing won't let me reverse up the drive), auto distance control (thinks parking pillar is traffic), reverse camera, auto park etc. etc.

Rant over!

ps: Love Fuel Injection

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by wnut

Agreed!

"Technology is great, but not just for the sake of having it."

90% of this rubbish I don't even want.

Blue tooth, GPS maps (always need updates), ABS, Traction Control, Dynamic Stability Control, plastic engine cover, irritating bongy thing, cup holder, blue tooth, idrive, sport mode, run flat tyres, electric windows, electric seats, electric steering, self activating lights, self dipping lights, auto anti-glare mirror, parking sensors (stupid thing won't let me reverse up the drive), auto distance control (thinks parking pillar is traffic), reverse camera, auto park etc. etc.

Rant over!

ps: Love Fuel Injection

You have a choice of a Caterham 7,Lotus Elise or a Land Rover Defender can't think of any others that fit the bill!

[Marbot]

A lot of the stuff you'll find under the bonnets (hoods) of cars will have a lot to do with emission control. EGR valves, diesel particle filters, etc. They are what usually go wrong when one part of the system dips below the norm, and the orange check lamp comes on, often accompanied by 'limp mode'.

Interestingly, the 2014 F1 turbo engines will also have EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) valves. I also hope that they have little orange lights on the steering wheel.

[Marbot]

"Sauber CEO Monisha Kaltenborn says that her outfit has always been in favour of such a budget restriction, although she is well aware that it must be pitched at the right level."

"We for a while have been proposing a budget cap, which we are still convinced about because it will allow everyone to make use of their strengths," she told AUTOSPORT.

"It would be a level playing field and everyone could go the way they wanted to, which I think would make the sport very exciting.

"But we should not start at a level that is even beyond what people are doing right now. Fans want to see competition between teams, and what strategic decision you take on the development side as well as on track."

I'm all for that, but it needs a budget cap for it to work. Not going to happen though, is it.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

A lot of the stuff you'll find under the bonnets (hoods) of cars will have a lot to do with emission control. EGR valves, diesel particle filters, etc. They are what usually go wrong when one part of the system dips below the norm, and the orange check lamp comes on, often accompanied by 'limp mode'.

Interestingly, the 2014 F1 turbo engines will also have EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) valves. I also hope that they have little orange lights on the steering wheel.

How are they using them? ALS is basically EGR afterall

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by Marbot

"Sauber CEO Monisha Kaltenborn says that her outfit has always been in favour of such a budget restriction, although she is well aware that it must be pitched at the right level."

"We for a while have been proposing a budget cap, which we are still convinced about because it will allow everyone to make use of their strengths," she told AUTOSPORT.

"It would be a level playing field and everyone could go the way they wanted to, which I think would make the sport very exciting.

"But we should not start at a level that is even beyond what people are doing right now. Fans want to see competition between teams, and what strategic decision you take on the development side as well as on track."

I'm all for that, but it needs a budget cap for it to work. Not going to happen though, is it.

That sounds scarily like a Fantasy F1 proposal for Engineering teams

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

That sounds scarily like a Fantasy F1 proposal for Engineering teams

That sounds hopefuly like a Fantastic F1 proposal for Engineering teams!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

That sounds hopefuly like a Fantastic F1 proposal for Engineering teams!

Like I said, I'm all for that. But the moment you let it become a spending competition, you'll be right back to where we are now.

[knighty]

I work in automotive advanced engineering, in the hybrid-powertrain sector for a 10 billion euro company.......the general rule of thumb is only 2% of advanced technology projects ever make it into mass production for the mainstream automotive OEM world.......so there is 98% of junk out there at any one time.......food for thought ;-)

One of my previous engine design mentors coincidentally designed a significant portion of the cosworth GBA turbo V6 as he served 30 years in the Cosworth design office, and even by his own admission Cosworth were always 2 years behind the other F1 turbo manufacturers like renault and ferrari that started much earlier........the reason was Keith Duckworth hated turbo engines with a passion and kept plugging away with DFV variants till he realised they just were not competitive........but were reliable!.......hence Keke Rosberg won the championship after all other turbo engines blew up in front of him!.......hence the Ford F1 turbo engine was never that good, and it was never in a top car, or pedalled by a top driver........ there is some great footage on youtube if you look for it

[wnut]

The Bishop Rotary Valve System


http://home.people.net.au/~mrbdesign...utoTechBRV.pdf

In this article about the Bishop Rotary Valve engine 2 quotes hit the mark regarding F1s role in developing new technology.

In 2002 the first V10 engine was designed and manufactured in 2003. Testing these engines was prematurely terminated when the FIA announced changes to Article 5.1.5 of the engine regulations late in 2004 with the specific purpose of banning this rotary valve technology.


Regretfully F1 has abandoned its long standing reason de’tre to “improve the breed” and replaced it with “protection of the status quo”.

After reading this article, hands up who would not want to see this technology developed in F1, and who believes it would not be the way forward in production cars once proven?

This is what F1 should be about!

Clearly it is not!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

The Bishop Rotary Valve System


http://home.people.net.au/~mrbdesign...utoTechBRV.pdf

In this article about the Bishop Rotary Valve engine 2 quotes hit the mark regarding F1s role in developing new technology.

In 2002 the first V10 engine was designed and manufactured in 2003. Testing these engines was prematurely terminated when the FIA announced changes to Article 5.1.5 of the engine regulations late in 2004 with the specific purpose of banning this rotary valve technology.


Regretfully F1 has abandoned its long standing reason de’tre to “improve the breed” and replaced it with “protection of the status quo”.

After reading this article, hands up who would not want to see this technology developed in F1, and who believes it would not be the way forward in production cars once proven?

This is what F1 should be about!

Clearly it is not!

I think that maybe the FIA were concerned that just one engine would have had a big advantage for a very long time. There would have been patents to consider, and then perhaps the idea that something even better might be allowed by the regulation to threaten the millions of dollars worth of R&D that had gone into making the bishop rotary valve obsolete merely by having a board room meeting to sign off new F1 technical regulations.

If you're going allow one specific technology, then you have to allow every other technology, and then it all gets a bit silly.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I think that maybe the FIA were concerned that just one engine would have had a big advantage for a very long time. There would have been patents to consider, and then perhaps the idea that something even better might be allowed by the regulation to threaten the millions of dollars worth of R&D that had gone into making the bishop rotary valve obsolete merely by having a board room meeting to sign off new F1 technical regulations.

If you're going allow one specific technology, then you have to allow every other technology, and then it all gets a bit silly.

I would have thought that the limitation on technology was to specify an internal combustion energy of a certain displacement.
Perhaps specifying normal aspiration is reasonable, but anything else is killing off technical development.
Unless they want to limit fuel usage to promote efficiency anything else is a bit counter productive.
But then it is a huge waste of money spending it on technology when all you have to do is spend a lot more on a driver, but get twice the news coverage.
A no brainer for no brainers