Engine problems?

[Marbot]

There seems to be some debate as to how to detune the V10 for next season.It seems that at the moment a V10 will have an advantage over a V8 and it's not just Minardi that will use one.Maybe a restricted V10 in a modified 2005 chassis will be better after all.http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33846

[DKGandBH]

I'm sure that if the V10s have an advantage, that will soon change.

DKGandBH

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by DKGandBH

I'm sure that if the V10s have an advantage, that will soon change.

DKGandBH

I'm sure your right,but we have 'Stoddy' fighting in the V10 corner!

[DKGandBH]

And that is good...How ?

DKGandBH

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by DKGandBH

And that is good...How ?

DKGandBH

Precisely,it's not good! PS will take a very dim view of the FIA if he feels his engines are unfairly restricted.It would seem that a 3 litre V10 developing 800 bhp is much better than a 2.4 litre V8 developing 800 bhp,for obvious reasons.

[JeremySmith]

I fear that this could turn into another giant you know what, and I don't mean the thread.

[Glen]

Jean Todt says in an interview that all the manufacturer teamshave agreed in writing to use V8s:
__
(Pitpass)

There has been much talk in the Istanbul paddock that the equivalency formula may favour the V10 in 2006.

"Maybe," (Todt) shrugs, "but we are all committed to the V8, at least all the manufacturers. We signed a letter."

"They signed a letter on Friday," adds (communications manager) Luca Colajanni. "There is gentleman's agreement between all the teams."

"It's more than a gentleman's agreement," adds Todt, "it's a signed letter by all the manufacturers."
__

Manufacturer teams - does that include Williams?

[Dani Filth]

i think it includes Cosworth

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Precisely,it's not good! PS will take a very dim view of the FIA if he feels his engines are unfairly restricted.

I'm sure Stoddy will have a clear grasp of what fair is, but how do you define that. Basically the only way is to take a view of how good in comparison you think the engine should be to the opposition. Unrestricted a 3l V10 is better than a 2.4l V8. So how much do restrict it? and do so fairly?

Do you make it as good as the best, the worst or the average V8. How do you know what is 'as good as'. It'll have different characteristics as martyn mentions), how do you match these? Even ignoring that is it fair that one team develops a V8 (be that the best, the worst or the average V8) and then someone with an old V10 gets an engine as good as yours?

The V10 route is a favour to those who can't get a V8 car quickly. It is best if it disappears quickly. The constant arguing over what is fair with regard to FWD, RWD or Seat's weight limits in touring car are annoying.

For me a V10 has to be at the low edge of the scale. A team should just be allowed to chose a very restricted V10 or a V8 and leave it at that. However the emphasis should be on V8 being and becoming the best choice. With more development this should happen naturally (presumably a new V8 has more development potential than a restricted V10). So perhaps you can match them now and let development draw them apart. Or maybe you set a limitation now and say every two races that (rev?) limitation gets worse?

What is fair?

[Marbot]

We seem also to have an air restrictor now http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=96114

[Louis B.]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Precisely,it's not good! PS will take a very dim view of the FIA if he feels his engines are unfairly restricted.It would seem that a 3 litre V10 developing 800 bhp is much better than a 2.4 litre V8 developing 800 bhp,for obvious reasons.

Could someone explain to me what are those obvious reasons? If both can develop 800 bhp and last two races, I would think that you are better with the lighter V8 engine. I don't know much about engines though.

[Adam43]

Assuming both a 3l V10 and a 2.4l V8 produce 800bhp. Then a 3l V10 would most likely do it at lower revs and have more torque. Torque is king and also the engine would be less stressed and be more reliable. However the V8 would likely be lighter. Except that the FIA have said the minimum weight and centre of gravity would all be limited, so the V10 might not be disadvantaged here.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Louis B.

Could someone explain to me what are those obvious reasons? If both can develop 800 bhp and last two races, I would think that you are better with the lighter V8 engine. I don't know much about engines though.

The V8 will not be lighter,it must have a minimum weight of 95 Kgs.Many of the V10s weigh less than this.Also the V8 will have to rev like crazy to develop its 800 bhp,whereas the V10 will be way below the V8 in terms of revs but still able to develop the same power and more reliably.

[Adam43]

Thanks martyn, I was just looking for what the new engine minimum weight was. 95kg!

The new engine specs can be found on the FIA website. I've just be lookng a the proposed '08 regs: http://www.fia.com/resources/documen..._Regs_2008.pdf

Which we did discuss when they were originally released. However it is interesting that there is still provision for a V10 in 2008: http://www.fia.com/resources/documen...07_2005_F1.pdf

Originally Posted by FIA

A 3 litre V10 engine will remain an option for teams unable to obtain a 2.4 litre V8, but subject to similar strict performance limitations as in 2006 and 2007

[Gore]

I hadn't realised the FIA were mandating a minimum engine weight next year... how long before we have a spec formula..?

The tricky question with regulating Minardi next year will be trying to compensate for the effect of the chassis: if Minardi are only three seconds off the pace next year, does the FIA step in and reduce their air intakes? Or do we wait 'til they're within two seconds? Or until they've won a race...

As Adam says, it's tedious watching the touring cars argue over equivalence formulae, but that will always be the case when you're trying to administer two sets of rules. At least in touring cars one can see some argument for manufacturers persisting with technologies that don't meet the (objectively) necessary requirements for competitiveness...

[Louis B.]

Thanks to both of you Martyn and Adam.

[DKGandBH]

How are they going to enforce the engine weight for each race ?
Do they take it off and weight it ?

Seems rather strange, when they will be at the minimum weight for the car anyway ?

DKGandBH

[Raglanparade]

Even if the Minardi has an extra 50-100hp, they are most likely still going to be down the rear end of the field.

I think the only event that would cause the engine rules to be reconsidered would be if a Minardi scored GP points on its own merit (eg. Not due to a lot of retirements or a Indy Fiasco).

[Marbot]

Minardi would probably still require the full power version of RedBulls current engine to get anywhere near the front of the grid next year.

The one thing Minardi will have over the others is reliability,running their engine at max revs at each and every GP will not be a problem.Should last two races easy.

[annettouille]

Originally Posted by DKGandBH

How are they going to enforce the engine weight for each race ?
Do they take it off and weight it ?

Seems rather strange, when they will be at the minimum weight for the car anyway ?

DKGandBH

Will that minimum weight include the weight of all lubricants and liquid contained in the primary and possible hidden tanks or lines?

[Snrub]

What the heck are Brawn and Haug whining about? I know Ferrari is going backwards, but worrying about Minardi might mean that they're in real trouble.

jasonhill9884 has it exactly right. It doesn't matter. Keep in mind that Minardi will not be running a new car next year either. I keep using this example, but it's useful: We know Ferrari and Toyota were 3 seconds a lap slower with 200hp less. So if Minardi have 50hp more than the BEST V8, they'd have 3/4ths a second advantage. The other teams will likely gain a second with their new cars so Minardi will fall even further behind. Frankly I think Minardi should be allowed to have a at least a 50hp advantage so that they're at least close to the Midland cars. I think they should adjust it to make the competition at the back closer, just like other sanctioning bodies do. eg. SCCA, IMSA, Grand Am.

[Kicking-back]

Interestingly - in testing at Monza a V8 was about 10 seconds off rather than 3 at Jerez

[Pingguest]

Romours are saying that BMW will continue with a V10. Maybe BMW will have a huge advantage.

[Glen]

If BMW kick off their F1 career by breaking the widely reported agreement between manufacturers that will be the icing on the cake. My respect for Theissen could hardly be lower, but his would do the trick!

On the other hand, if Minardi (and/or Jordan) enjoy an odd kind of advantage for a season or so that can only be good to my mind. I doubt they will win, much less dominate, anything (maybe Monza?) but the different engine characteristic will give us some great entertainment - more grunt and pick-up out of the corners vs superior handling, braking and grip of the "proper" cars. Sounds good to me.

[lookleft]

It's a bit hard to have any sympathy for these two. Perhaps if Ferrari was willing to listen to the other teams in general they may have a case. Can't see how, or why, Stoddy is going to get rolled on this one. If the big boys are so worried that they now want to go back and re-write the rules for '06 then maybe they should pay 10% of their budget to Minardi to let them build anther chassis. Either that or get back to the dyno and save more money