[Tech Issue] Formula One: The Next Generation. What would you like to see?

[S14]

Originally Posted by miatanut

It would all take care of itself, like it did for more than 50 years of Grand Prix racing before the Bernievision version we have now.

If Cosworth thought the ROI wasn't there, they would focus on the more profitable aerospace/military work that makes the majority of their income now. If they thought the ROI was there, they would invest to create something competitive. You talk like if there were alternate means of propulsion available, poor Cosworth would be thrown by the wayside. I think it would be quite the contrary. That company, full of engineers working on far-out stuff, well beyond what most automotive engineers are working on, may well clean-up. Their engineers are capable of thinking in directions the automotive engineers couldn't imagine.

Cosworth, it would seem, doesn't think the RoI is there - hence their not developing a new engine for the V6 regs.

In any case, suppose all the engine vendors pulled out, leaving only Ferrari, and Ferrari said they would only provide engines to the rest of the field for $200,000,000 per car per season. First, the sanctioning body would step in and demand a more reasonable rate. Second, there would be some company out there that would conclude they could provide something reasonably competitive which they could charge a boatload of money for (slightly undercutting the reduced Ferrari rate negotiated with the sanctioning body), and most of the teams would flock to them.

Or the teams would decide that the cost of entry is too high and go elsewhere. If Ferrari is charging $200,000,000 per car per season, and Renault is charging $150,000,000 per car per season, how many teams are going to be able to afford that on top of their chassis, travel, and other expenses? How many teams will be willing to stay in F1?

As far as your straw man of engine mounting configuration, if the whole field's chassis are designed for the Ferrari mount, obviously the new vendor needs to design their unit to work with that. If a vendor left at some point (say after the cars were designed), then any vendor who is going to fill the gap will have to work with the teams to create some mounting that works, possibly requiring redesign on both sides. Yea, it's a pain and costs time and money. F1 racing demands a lot of time and money. It's nothing new.

What if every team is set up either for Ferrari's 60° V12 or for Renault's Turbo I4, and then Renault pulls out a few months before the start of the season? The teams set up for a turbo I4 are going to have some serious problems adapting to the Ferrari V12. And lets say that some other manufacturer comes out with an I4 turbo? How quickly will Cosworth or BMW or Porsche or Peugeot or any other manufacturer be able to come up with a competitive engine? How much will it cost?

If that engine isn't competitive, how many teams are going to keep running it, or spend the money to develop it while Ferrari (and the Ferrari engined teams) sweep up?

You say "F1 racing demands a lot of time and money." That's absolutely true. But in the cases you describe the amount of time and money will likely balloon to unacceptable levels. Teams don't have unlimited time or cash, and they won't stay in the sport for the love of the sport if it means bankrupting themselves.

This stuff takes care of itself if you have some rules, but not excessively strict ones. Your basic argument is the current Bernievision version of F1 is the only way it can be. No other approach is viable. I think we have decades of evidence that isn't the case.

Those decades were at a time when the cost of entry into the sport was much lower. I can't say that an open regulation series today wouldn't be financially viable, but I can definitely say it certainly looks that way.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Yeah. I also think I got it mixed up with them running last seasons car, during testing.

Interesting to note that Cosworth are now intending to start work on a V6 turbo engine. If the regs were more open, they would definitely be having a huge advantage right now, particularly as they are rather good at building engines at short notice.

I didn't think last season's car had a stepped nose,

What are the specs on the V6 turbo?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by S14

Cosworth, it would seem, doesn't think the RoI is there - hence their not developing a new engine for the V6 regs.

They are now thinking about developing a V6 turbo for 2014, but only if they are absolutely sure that the engine regulations aren't going to change half way through spending huge sums of money on a 1.5 litre V6 turbo engine that no one wants any more.

Originally Posted by S14

Or the teams would decide that the cost of entry is too high and go elsewhere. If Ferrari is charging $200,000,000 per car per season, and Renault is charging $150,000,000 per car per season, how many teams are going to be able to afford that on top of their chassis, travel, and other expenses? How many teams will be willing to stay in F1?

If those costs were true, I reckon you might see three or four teams continuing on in F1. Maybe.

Originally Posted by S14

What if every team is set up either for Ferrari's 60° V12 or for Renault's Turbo I4, and then Renault pulls out a few months before the start of the season? The teams set up for a turbo I4 are going to have some serious problems adapting to the Ferrari V12. And lets say that some other manufacturer comes out with an I4 turbo? How quickly will Cosworth or BMW or Porsche or Peugeot or any other manufacturer be able to come up with a competitive engine? How much will it cost?

This is the problem you are faced with if everyone comes and goes when they please. It's a lesson that F1 learnt quite recently, when Honda pulled out at the very end of 2008.

Originally Posted by S14

If that engine isn't competitive, how many teams are going to keep running it, or spend the money to develop it while Ferrari (and the Ferrari engined teams) sweep up?

None.

Originally Posted by S14

You say "F1 racing demands a lot of time and money." That's absolutely true. But in the cases you describe the amount of time and money will likely balloon to unacceptable levels. Teams don't have unlimited time or cash, and they won't stay in the sport for the love of the sport if it means bankrupting themselves.

True. And it isn't something that a budget cap would put right, because there isn't really a good way of treating all of the teams as being equal with regard to spend on engine development and other things.

Originally Posted by S14

Those decades were at a time when the cost of entry into the sport was much lower. I can't say that an open regulation series today wouldn't be financially viable, but I can definitely say it certainly looks that way.

R&D on modern F1 engines costs money, and a lot of it. When a team like Mercedes starts making noises about sticking with the V8s after 2014, you know that it's an awful lot of money.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I didn't think last season's car had a stepped nose,

They used last seasons car at this seasons F1 tests.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

What are the specs on the V6 turbo?

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/A0425C3A0A7D69C0C12578D3002EBECA/$FILE/2014_F1_TECHNICAL_REGULATIONS_-_Published_on_20.07.pdf

Section 5.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

When Renault were finally taken seriously, with regard to turbo engines (even though the regulations actually permitted only 'Supercharging', which is totally different),

No it isnt.

Turbo is short for "turbine supercharger" The only fundamental difference is one compresses the air using energy from the crank and the other compresses the air using energy from the exhaust.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by luke g28

No it isnt.

Turbo is short for "turbine supercharger" The only fundamental difference is one compresses the air using energy from the crank and the other compresses the air using energy from the exhaust.

Supercharging and turbocharging are quite different; the fact one might use the crank and the other exhaust emissions is difference enough, plus there are various methods of supercharging.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

No it isnt.

Turbo is short for "turbine supercharger" The only fundamental difference is one compresses the air using energy from the crank and the other compresses the air using energy from the exhaust.

Turbo is short for Turbocharger. Supercharger does not have a shortened version of its name ('Blower' is sometimes used). Some VAG Group cars are fitted with both a Supercharger and a Turbocharger (?). Even Wikipedia makes distinctions between the two.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Supercharging and turbocharging are quite different; the fact one might use the crank and the other exhaust emissions is difference enough, plus there are various methods of supercharging.

Indeed there are, and one of them is turbocharging.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Indeed there are, and one of them is turbocharging.

A supercharger is driven directly by the engine, resulting in extra fuel being burnt in order to power the supercharger, while a turbocharger isn't and doesn't burn extra fuel to power it, which is why they are seen as two distinct methods of forced induction.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Indeed there are, and one of them is turbocharging.

Whilst technically it can be said that turbocharging is a form of supercharging, there is a considerable distinction between them.

No one should be left in any doubt about the 2014 regulation.

5.1.6 Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor linked to a sole single stage exhaust turbine by a common shaft parallel to the engine crankshaft and within 25mm of the car centre line. An electrical motor generator (MGUH) may be directly coupled to the same shaft.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

A supercharger is driven directly by the engine, resulting in extra fuel being burnt in order to power the supercharger, while a turbocharger isn't, which is why they are seen as two distinct methods of forced induction.

I think you can have endless fun arguing about the meaning of words, I did look in a couple of dictionaries before posting too. They didn't quite agree but the consensus seemed to be that that Super charging (verb) is the act of getting a heavier charge into the engine by whatever means but that a super charger (noun) is mechanically driven from the engine while a turbo charger is obviously driven by the exhaust. On this basis if super charging were permitted you can do it with a supercharger, a turbocharger or anything else you can get to work come to that.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

I think you can have endless fun arguing about the meaning of words, I did look in a couple of dictionaries before posting too. They didn't quite agree but the consensus seemed to be that that Super charging (verb) is the act of getting a heavier charge into the engine by whatever means but that a super charger (noun) is mechanically driven from the engine while a turbo charger is obviously driven by the exhaust. On this basis if super charging were permitted you can do it with a supercharger, a turbocharger or anything else you can get to work come to that.

They are both forms of forced induction and it's the method I think that defines the terminology.

[Marbot]

Obviously, in the case of VAG group dual method of forced induction, the distinction is made to be quite clear.

[bjohnsonsmith]

The paragraph on forced induction makes the distinction between superchargers and turbochargers.

http://www.bhptuning.com/html/vw_aud...hnical_in.html

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They are both forms of forced induction and it's the method I think that defines the terminology.

I'm well aware of the engineering and physics involved however if you go back a few posts this discussion was about why turbo chargers where permitted under rules which allowed supercharging, this is explained by the dictionary definitions of the words supercharging, supercharger and turbocharger. After all anyone who follows formula 1 nowadays must know that rules are all about the meaning of words and have nothing to do with engineering.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

I'm well aware of the engineering and physics involved however if you go back a few posts this discussion was about why turbo chargers where permitted under rules which allowed supercharging, this is explained by the dictionary definitions of the words supercharging, supercharger and turbocharger. After all anyone who follows formula 1 nowadays must know that rules are all about the meaning of words and have nothing to do with engineering.

I suppose the reason turbocharging was allowed is due to some superchargers using a compressor that's very similar to a turbocharger compressor.