Home  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Single Seater Racing > Formula One

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 6 Jul 2021, 10:05 (Ref:4060078)   #26
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
How can a single manufacturer be exempted if the others are booted? if the manufacturer contingent was to be done away with I want to be around to see how they do it because I reckon it would be awesome fight. It is an idea often touted but those who advance never explain how to do it or how F1 would survive the resultant upheaval. Gee, I hope it happens before I walk off this earth, it will an even more awesome fight if Ferrari were to be exempt. Bring it on!!
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Jul 2021, 10:12 (Ref:4060079)   #27
Akrapovic
Veteran
 
Akrapovic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Scotland
Posts: 10,912
Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!
I don't believe anyone said we were to "boot" the manufacturers, or them to be "done away with". What I said was that the rules should be built around the idea of a sustainable affordable sport, with entertainment taking into account - not built around the political statements that car manufacturers who don't care about the sport want to make.

Manufacturer downsizing of programs would come as a product of the rules, not dictated by the rules.
Akrapovic is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Jul 2021, 12:06 (Ref:4060098)   #28
S griffin
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,325
S griffin is going for a new world record!S griffin is going for a new world record!S griffin is going for a new world record!S griffin is going for a new world record!S griffin is going for a new world record!S griffin is going for a new world record!S griffin is going for a new world record!
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/r...er-fe/6626566/

Yes I agree with this. Formula E is fine in it's own right, so F1 doesn't need to copy that. It needs to remain spectacular in it's own way
S griffin is offline  
__________________
He who dares wins!
He who hesitates is lost!
Quote
Old 6 Jul 2021, 12:09 (Ref:4060102)   #29
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,801
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Horner commenting on the 2025+ power unit

Quote:
Red Bull boss Christian Horner says that Formula 1’s new 2025 engine needs to be loud and "entertaining" for fans, otherwise teams may as well go and do Formula E.
Quote:
Horner thinks that F1 has a golden opportunity to do a much better job with these engine rules than it managed with the current turbo hybrids, which have proved to be expensive, complicated and criticised for being too quiet.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/r...er-fe/6626566/

I suspect Horner is trying to kill multiple birds with one stone here. First of all, most of the fans would agree with him. Second, while the Honda power unit is highly efficient, and no doubt Red Bull Powertrains has hired a number of knowledgeable staff, they have inherited a solution designed by someone else. So they should have worries about successfully converting that baseline into a new design for 2025 AND keeping the magic that makes the Honda either #1 or #2 in the current pecking order.

So RB would like to NOT participate in a new ICE efficiency war. More sound means less energy converted into power. Which ultimately might mean a purposefully LESS efficient ICE component. Might the 2025 regulations cap ICE efficiency and focus development on hybrid power utilization?

Richard
Richard C is online now  
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Quote
Old 6 Jul 2021, 13:19 (Ref:4060136)   #30
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrapovic View Post
I don't believe anyone said we were to "boot" the manufacturers, or them to be "done away with". What I said was that the rules should be built around the idea of a sustainable affordable sport, with entertainment taking into account - not built around the political statements that car manufacturers who don't care about the sport want to make.

Manufacturer downsizing of programs would come as a product of the rules, not dictated by the rules.
Not going to happen. Liberty want this sport to be big and glamorous and the manufacturers bring exactly that to the sport. To make the rules tighter than what they are simply gives us cookie cutter cars. people complain the sport is boring now without that being foisted on them. me, I want them to give the teams a box size with an atmo PU capacity limit and the teams can design a car to fit in the box.

Horner wants simplicity to return because he is pushing his own agenda and does not care what else happens which is operations normal in F1 for obvious reasons. He has driven the whole PU thing since Honda pulled the plug but to sustain the effort of developing a more electric centric PU might be something that RB do not want at any cost either because of the money needed for R&D or the technical effort that would be needed. If he had not succeeded in locking up the PU development it is possible that things might be different this year with RB winning by even more. I wonder if he now regrets that.

As pointed out earlier either they simplify the whole thing or go down the hybrid/electric rabbit hole and that can only lead to full electric. Maybe BE was more clever than what we thought because he would have faced exactly the same problem.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Jul 2021, 13:47 (Ref:4060141)   #31
Akrapovic
Veteran
 
Akrapovic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Scotland
Posts: 10,912
Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
Not going to happen.
Yes, I never claimed it would? The 2025 regs have basically been decided, it's just details that need fleshed out. My entire series of posts was not a "this is going to happen" setup - it is "this is what should happen for the good of the sport" setup.
Akrapovic is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Jul 2021, 15:03 (Ref:4060166)   #32
V8 Fireworks
Veteran
 
V8 Fireworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,923
V8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridV8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridV8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrapovic View Post
Yeah those teams - the ones the were forced to sell out to billionaires (and in McLarens case, governments) in order to survive as costs were pushed ridiculously high by manufacturers who don't care about the sport Those teams indeed. Because they weren't owned by these people until things got out of hand. And why is it out of hand now? Oh, that's right.
But they were propped up by cigarette money. The ones that lost their cigarette money, like Team Lotus and Team Jordan, went out of business anyway.
V8 Fireworks is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Jul 2021, 15:39 (Ref:4060173)   #33
Akrapovic
Veteran
 
Akrapovic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Scotland
Posts: 10,912
Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks View Post
But they were propped up by cigarette money. The ones that lost their cigarette money, like Team Lotus and Team Jordan, went out of business anyway.
I think we need a reality check here. The money that tobacco sponsorship brought to F1 in, say, the 90s, wouldn't even cover the engines alone now (when adjusted for inflation).

I don't think people appreciate how out of hand F1 budgets are now. McLaren operated on around $30m a year when funded by Marlboro and Shell in the 90s. Their current budget is $305m. An increase of over 1000%. Adjusting for inflation, the McLaren budget of today should be approx $70m.

Each PU costs approx $10m (Mercedes apparently $14 per unit). They get, what 5? So you're at $50m a year for engines? The maths problem here is obvious.

You can reintroduce tobacco money if you want. It's pennies now compared to current budgets. It's been estimated that Mercedes have had to spend $1.4Bn to get the engines as good as they are (hence why Toto wants to charge teams more money for them). $1.4bn for 1 teams engines. That would've covered the entire grid before (again, adjusting for inflation).
Akrapovic is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Jul 2021, 16:06 (Ref:4060180)   #34
chillibowl
Veteran
 
chillibowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Canada
winnipeg, canada
Posts: 9,718
chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!chillibowl is the undisputed Champion of the World!
sure but there is now a budget cap and a greater distribution of the prize money and far more discourse between FOM, suppliers and customers about purchase price.

the problems you are addressing are valid and true and i agree about the negative influence of manus over time...i think we all do but we are trying to talk about what happens next and with respect, not about why we got to where we are today.

specifically, should F1 be responding to environmental concerns and or/ the manus need to address these issues in the rules they put forward.

i appreciate you dont think they should be a platform responsible for promoting environmental responsibility but if this was a conversation about equality/diversity hiring let say (or pick another rapidly changing social norm), would you still say that this isnt F1's problem so they should just go about doing whatever used to work in 19whatever?

no one lives on an island right? social media saw to that. whether its privateer island or manu island, F1, heck everything now days, is held accountable to the often capricious turnings of the mob.

and maybe it has always been this way. after all this is what the Romans gave us!
chillibowl is online now  
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there
I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place
Quote
Old 6 Jul 2021, 16:13 (Ref:4060182)   #35
V8 Fireworks
Veteran
 
V8 Fireworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,923
V8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridV8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridV8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrapovic View Post
Each PU costs approx $10m (Mercedes apparently $14 per unit). They get, what 5? So you're at $50m a year for engines? The maths problem here is obvious.

$1.4bn for 1 teams engines. That would've covered the entire grid before (again, adjusting for inflation).
Hey, I am all for sticking these things in the Grand Prix cars! 12 cylinders arranged in a 60-degree Vee just as the motoring Gods intended.


https://www.cosworth.com/case_studies/t-50/

At 178kg (being a 100,000 mile road car engine) it is a little heavy, but it could be possible to get the weight down closer to 100kg for racing. But I don't think it is going to happen though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chillibowl View Post
specifically, should F1 be responding to environmental concerns and or/ the manus need to address these issues in the rules they put forward.
Do GMA T50 (or Ferrari 812 etc) buyers feel as if they are personally murdering seals and polar bears, or do they not care about the poor optics of driving around in a high-revving gas guzzler spewing out pollution for nothing more than their personal entertainment?

In places like Australia or the United States which don't have CO2 road tax, gas guzzling pollution-spewing 6.2 litre Holden Commodores or Chevrolet Silverados are still viable daily transportation for the middle classes... An untenable situation and social embarrassment for drivers of said vehicles?

It such a confusing situation. On the one hand, a wail of a naturally aspirated V12 or rumble of a Chevrolet V8 is something "petrolheads" find glorious, on the other hand it is socially repulsive and a massive social faux pas by modern standards -- as the day of ICE vehicles being "romantic, freedom machines" is apparently long gone.

Last edited by V8 Fireworks; 6 Jul 2021 at 16:29.
V8 Fireworks is offline  
Quote
Old 8 Jul 2021, 12:55 (Ref:4060397)   #36
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
We might have to change the thread title

https://www.autoweek.com/racing/form...ew-f1-engines/

Now why am I not surprised. I might suspect that a couple of teams might not want the pecking order to change.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 10 Jul 2021, 06:08 (Ref:4060582)   #37
wnut
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrapovic View Post
I think we need a reality check here. The money that tobacco sponsorship brought to F1 in, say, the 90s, wouldn't even cover the engines alone now (when adjusted for inflation).

I don't think people appreciate how out of hand F1 budgets are now. McLaren operated on around $30m a year when funded by Marlboro and Shell in the 90s. Their current budget is $305m. An increase of over 1000%. Adjusting for inflation, the McLaren budget of today should be approx $70m.

Each PU costs approx $10m (Mercedes apparently $14 per unit). They get, what 5? So you're at $50m a year for engines? The maths problem here is obvious.

You can reintroduce tobacco money if you want. It's pennies now compared to current budgets. It's been estimated that Mercedes have had to spend $1.4Bn to get the engines as good as they are (hence why Toto wants to charge teams more money for them). $1.4bn for 1 teams engines. That would've covered the entire grid before (again, adjusting for inflation).

I believe the best way to control costs would be to tell the manufacturers that they can have any PU they like provided they cost no more than $100 000 dollars each and are available in a minimum quantity to anyone who wishes to purchase them. Similar to current regulations of price and specification to the customers, but hugely cheaper.

What would happen if Pirelli decided each tyre would cost $1 million from the beginning of next season?
It is basically what the manufacturers have done with their engines, they are using the customer to sponsor the manufacturer's F1 involvement, and setting the rules that everyone must follow.
wnut is offline  
Quote
Old 10 Jul 2021, 06:56 (Ref:4060587)   #38
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I will ask the question again, why does F1 use a bespoke PU? Give them a sealed stock block V8 and the teams can bolt on a turbo or supercharger, run what boost and map they like and if it blows up they have to buy another from a series pool. No repairs and no mods allowed, blow it up and buy another one so the risk is there as to how far they can push it. Fantasy time I know but I can dream.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 10 Jul 2021, 12:59 (Ref:4060623)   #39
wnut
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
I will ask the question again, why does F1 use a bespoke PU? Give them a sealed stock block V8 and the teams can bolt on a turbo or supercharger, run what boost and map they like and if it blows up they have to buy another from a series pool. No repairs and no mods allowed, blow it up and buy another one so the risk is there as to how far they can push it. Fantasy time I know but I can dream.
Sounds good to me.
Given how tightly specified the engines are there does not seem to be much of a reason not to.

Why not? The FIA is controlled by the manufacturers.
wnut is offline  
Quote
Old 12 Jul 2021, 03:16 (Ref:4060795)   #40
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
As far as I can tell no one has any explanation of why F1 has to have a bespoke PU and I have asked the question here and in other places. It was valid in the past because road engines were simply rubbish in capitals but that is no longer the case and it is simply obscene to see how much money is expended for no good reason at all. The only thing I can think of that might be a valid reason is the motor is a stressed member but I am sure the clever engineers in F1 could get around that problem with modern design techniques and materials now available. I live in hope that some day they will come to their senses and stop this nonsensical idea along with the fantasy that huge horsepower produces better racing.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 12 Jul 2021, 07:23 (Ref:4060804)   #41
Taxi645
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Netherlands
Posts: 979
Taxi645 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridTaxi645 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
So if we take a look at the requirements:

1. Environmental sustainability and social and automotive relevance
2. Fully sustainable fuel
3. Creating a powerful and emotive power unit
4. Significant cost reduction
5. Attractiveness to new power unit manufacturers
6. Reduces weight of the whole car.


Let's address how both engine concepts perform on above listed points and on that basis draw a conclusion. I will refer to the hybridized atmospheric engine as ATM-H and the turbo MGU-H hybrid as TUR-H.

1. Environmental sustainability and social and automotive relevance
As a side note I will added that the whole notion of fuel efficiency is completely ridiculous considering we are using antiquated aero regulation that require dragging barndoors through the air at 200mph. If we want efficiency, we need flexible aero surfaces that flex within a predefined envelope/set of criteria.

That said, I will split this up in 1a: efficiency/energy consumption/social relevance and 1b: automotive relevance.
1a: The total amount of energy used to transport, develop and produced and drive:
ATM-H vs TUR-H: Light weight engine and car, lower transport cost. Simple engine; takes less energy to produce, needs much less running time on the development dyno. On track uses a bit more fuel (partly compensated by the lighter car). Overall I would estimate that the total amount of energy used would be much lower for the ATM-H.
1b: automotive relevance: By 2030 most ICE’s will be simple combustion engines in developing and remote areas. Automotive relevance for the ATM-H will be higher than for the TUR-H, because any development in use of synthetic fuel will be much more relevant for the billions of simple atmospheric engines and could have a tangible purpose there where as the TUR-H will only have an image upholding purpose.


2. Fully sustainable fuel
Same for both ATM-H and TUR-H.

3. Creating a powerful and emotive power unit

ATM-H provides way better sound. Also a 3 to 3.5L V10 is a much more emotive power unit then a tiny 4-pot hybridized to the last drop. Limit the revs to somewhere between 15.000 and 17.000 to keep cost and noise down a bit.

4. Significant cost reduction
ATM-H way way better. Almost on a different order of magnitude.

5. Attractiveness to new power unit manufacturers

ATM-H way way better. The cost are much lower and the chances to compete on a similar level within reasonable time are much better.


6. Reduces weight of the whole car.
ATM-H will significantly reduce the weight of the car. Making them more fun to drive and increasing the scope to reduce their overall size again (wheelbase/length) so the is more room on track for wheel to wheel fighting.


So if we sum up the above:
  • Both ATM-H and TUR-H are hybrids to appease to people that think that is a requirement.
  • The ATM-H uses less energy if you look at the whole picture of development, dyno-testing, production, driving them and transporting the lighter smaller cars around the world.
  • Neither will be very road-relevant by 2030, but at least the ATM-H could be claimed to be useful for development for use of synthetic fuel in the simple atmospheric combustion engines that will be left by 2030.
  • The ATM-H sounds better and is a more emotive engine.
  • The ATM-H cost way less and makes small teams independent of manufacturer teams.
  • The ATM-H is much more attractive to new power unit entrants.

Continuing the current Turbo's with MGU-H would not seem a logical way forward considering the above.

Last edited by Taxi645; 12 Jul 2021 at 07:29.
Taxi645 is offline  
__________________
Constructive discussion: A conversion where participants are maximally open to yet critical of each others (and their own) arguments, with the intend of enhancing the knowledge, understanding and/or handling of it's subject.
Quote
Old 12 Jul 2021, 09:56 (Ref:4060814)   #42
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxi645 View Post
So if we take a look at the requirements:

1. Environmental sustainability and social and automotive relevance
2. Fully sustainable fuel
3. Creating a powerful and emotive power unit
4. Significant cost reduction
5. Attractiveness to new power unit manufacturers
6. Reduces weight of the whole car.


Let's address how both engine concepts perform on above listed points and on that basis draw a conclusion. I will refer to the hybridized atmospheric engine as ATM-H and the turbo MGU-H hybrid as TUR-H.

1. Environmental sustainability and social and automotive relevance
As a side note I will added that the whole notion of fuel efficiency is completely ridiculous considering we are using antiquated aero regulation that require dragging barndoors through the air at 200mph. If we want efficiency, we need flexible aero surfaces that flex within a predefined envelope/set of criteria.

That said, I will split this up in 1a: efficiency/energy consumption/social relevance and 1b: automotive relevance.
1a: The total amount of energy used to transport, develop and produced and drive:
ATM-H vs TUR-H: Light weight engine and car, lower transport cost. Simple engine; takes less energy to produce, needs much less running time on the development dyno. On track uses a bit more fuel (partly compensated by the lighter car). Overall I would estimate that the total amount of energy used would be much lower for the ATM-H.
1b: automotive relevance: By 2030 most ICE’s will be simple combustion engines in developing and remote areas. Automotive relevance for the ATM-H will be higher than for the TUR-H, because any development in use of synthetic fuel will be much more relevant for the billions of simple atmospheric engines and could have a tangible purpose there where as the TUR-H will only have an image upholding purpose.


2. Fully sustainable fuel
Same for both ATM-H and TUR-H.

3. Creating a powerful and emotive power unit

ATM-H provides way better sound. Also a 3 to 3.5L V10 is a much more emotive power unit then a tiny 4-pot hybridized to the last drop. Limit the revs to somewhere between 15.000 and 17.000 to keep cost and noise down a bit.

4. Significant cost reduction
ATM-H way way better. Almost on a different order of magnitude.

5. Attractiveness to new power unit manufacturers

ATM-H way way better. The cost are much lower and the chances to compete on a similar level within reasonable time are much better.


6. Reduces weight of the whole car.
ATM-H will significantly reduce the weight of the car. Making them more fun to drive and increasing the scope to reduce their overall size again (wheelbase/length) so the is more room on track for wheel to wheel fighting.


So if we sum up the above:
  • Both ATM-H and TUR-H are hybrids to appease to people that think that is a requirement.
  • The ATM-H uses less energy if you look at the whole picture of development, dyno-testing, production, driving them and transporting the lighter smaller cars around the world.
  • Neither will be very road-relevant by 2030, but at least the ATM-H could be claimed to be useful for development for use of synthetic fuel in the simple atmospheric combustion engines that will be left by 2030.
  • The ATM-H sounds better and is a more emotive engine.
  • The ATM-H cost way less and makes small teams independent of manufacturer teams.
  • The ATM-H is much more attractive to new power unit entrants.

Continuing the current Turbo's with MGU-H would not seem a logical way forward considering the above.
None of that convinces me that spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a bespoke PU is anything less than obscene in the sense of a total waste of money when everyone is encouraging a huge reduction in spending. Sorry, but I just don't get it. Years ago it was a necessity but not these days. Any kid can get a 1000hp out of any semi decent street motor without a huge spend.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 12 Jul 2021, 10:38 (Ref:4060818)   #43
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,801
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
None of that convinces me that spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a bespoke PU is anything less than obscene in the sense of a total waste of money when everyone is encouraging a huge reduction in spending. Sorry, but I just don't get it. Years ago it was a necessity but not these days. Any kid can get a 1000hp out of any semi decent street motor without a huge spend.
I appreciate the simplicity of looking for an off the shelf solution. But I expect that it's not as easy as you say. Weight, size, stressed member, g-load oiling issues, etc. Lastly, "bespoke" doesn't have to be the same as overly expensive. And a stock block developed to support F1 requirements (if even possible) is pretty much a "bespoke" solution when you are done.

Richard
Richard C is online now  
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Quote
Old 12 Jul 2021, 13:31 (Ref:4060825)   #44
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto View Post
I appreciate the simplicity of looking for an off the shelf solution. But I expect that it's not as easy as you say. Weight, size, stressed member, g-load oiling issues, etc. Lastly, "bespoke" doesn't have to be the same as overly expensive. And a stock block developed to support F1 requirements (if even possible) is pretty much a "bespoke" solution when you are done.

Richard
Weight is not an issue, all the motors will weigh the same and if all the extraneous crap on the present motors is removed it will be a wash I would think. Most high performance road motors are dry sumped or can be very easily so lubrication is not a problem either. A dry sumped V8 will not cost anywhere near a million dollars EACH to develop or buy, they could blow up quite a number before they got anywhere near a million dollars. The only legitimate difficulty I can see is the stressed member problem that F1 has been using since Colin Chapman introduced with the venerable DFV all those years ago.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 12 Jul 2021, 15:54 (Ref:4060843)   #45
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I realise my idea is simplistic but it would not cost a million dollars a PU either.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 12 Jul 2021, 16:02 (Ref:4060846)   #46
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,801
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
Weight is not an issue, all the motors will weigh the same and if all the extraneous crap on the present motors is removed it will be a wash I would think.
How would they all weigh the same unless you are saying to use a spec motor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
Most high performance road motors are dry sumped or can be very easily so lubrication is not a problem either.
So you are telling me that these stock block motors (and scavenge pump locations, etc) have been tested for the g-loads that F1 uses? I don't think so. They WOULD all require significant work.

So I am giving you a hard time above, to make my point that your earlier quote...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
Any kid can get a 1000hp out of any semi decent street motor without a huge spend.
... is a great throw away quote, but is also an extreme and unrealistic expectation.

I don't know much about NASCAR, but it generally advertises itself as using engines that are rooted in "stock" or "production" motors. In reality, I think a manufacture provides an iron block that fits specific requirements from NASCAR and those dimensions may be rooted in some old production block from decades ago, but make no mistake, those are bespoke blocks that the team then perform their own massive surgery upon (within the rules) to extract what they can from them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
A dry sumped V8 will not cost anywhere near a million dollars EACH to develop or buy, they could blow up quite a number before they got anywhere near a million dollars. The only legitimate difficulty I can see is the stressed member problem that F1 has been using since Colin Chapman introduced with the venerable DFV all those years ago.
But here you are getting into what I think is reality. DFV was a bespoke engine and it was not expensive. You have a number of examples in use today that are also clearly bespoke race engines that are used at top levels, but would be affordable for teams to use.

Gibson for example has a homologated 4.2L V8 that is used in the LMP2 cars. It has the basics like stressed member, designed for racing loads, etc. I think these are actually leased, so I don't know what the price is, but privateer LMP2 teams are making this work from a financial perspective.

https://www.gibsontech.co.uk/engines/gk428-engine

So, I am not saying to use the Gibson (or similar) "as is" for F1. But I am saying that there is a middle ground between "stock block based engines" and "current F1 excesses" that are true race engines AND affordable. Would they be state of the art as we know it today? No, but the point we are making is that they should not be cutting edge. Especially as "cutting edge" these days is no longer really about ICE and is moving to something else. But if F1 "wanted" to move in this direct it could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrapovic View Post
Yes, I never claimed it would? The 2025 regs have basically been decided, it's just details that need fleshed out. My entire series of posts was not a "this is going to happen" setup - it is "this is what should happen for the good of the sport" setup.
I think this is true. It's mostly a done deal, but it could be something else if they wanted.

Richard
Richard C is online now  
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Quote
Old 13 Jul 2021, 01:43 (Ref:4060877)   #47
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
You are missing the point entirely IMHO. There is no need to spend tens of millions of dollars to build a bespoke motor for F1 and all the arguments against it are just excuses. The DFV was a bespoke motor when it was absolutely essential to use one but that boat sailed long ago. The refusal to even look at using a stock block motor is a throw back to those days when it was the only way it could be done and the F1 group hanging onto that thinking.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 13 Jul 2021, 02:06 (Ref:4060880)   #48
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,801
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
You are missing the point entirely IMHO. There is no need to spend tens of millions of dollars to build a bespoke motor for F1 and all the arguments against it are just excuses. The DFV was a bespoke motor when it was absolutely essential to use one but that boat sailed long ago. The refusal to even look at using a stock block motor is a throw back to those days when it was the only way it could be done and the F1 group hanging onto that thinking.
If you simplify it to that, then I very much disagree. You dismiss valid and real counter points, not with specific counter arguments, but just outright dismiss them as "excuses". So there is no point in discussing. You are tilting at windmills IMHO.

Richard
Richard C is online now  
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Quote
Old 13 Jul 2021, 11:59 (Ref:4060899)   #49
wnut
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!wnut has a real shot at the championship!
Chevy R07 NASCAR engine, 397 cubic inches (6500 cc), 960 bhp for just north of $20 000.

https://www.holley.com/blog/post/get...et_r07_engine/

As far as a Chev V8 engine being used as a stressed member and the problems of dry sumping the Chev engine c.f. Lola T332 all in at 665 kg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_T332
wnut is offline  
Quote
Old 13 Jul 2021, 13:02 (Ref:4060907)   #50
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,801
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut View Post
Chevy R07 NASCAR engine, 397 cubic inches (6500 cc), 960 bhp for just north of $20 000.

https://www.holley.com/blog/post/get...et_r07_engine/
That is a street engine built off a bespoke NASCAR racing block. But with caveat. The $20K is for a "used" engine (not that engine shown in the article). I expect a built race version is $100K +/- (cheap, but not $20K cheap). They also are clearly bespoke solutions that are limited by the rules to a tight spec (not a bad thing)

Quote:
The R07 pricing has likely deterred its potential following. A used unit will sell north of $20,000. Plus, essentially, no parts are interchangeable with another Chevy engine.
I think this is a fine argument for "we can make large displacement V8 pushrod motors make big power". Cool, but not a new fact. This would make a nice monster motor for someone's street/show car. It would have bragging rights given the NASCAR block, but it would be an expensive street motor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut View Post
As far as a Chev V8 engine being used as a stressed member and the problems of dry sumping the Chev engine c.f. Lola T332 all in at 665 kg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_T332
Which as the article says it was not a stressed member. It was listed as "semi-stressed" which I assume means it was cradled, but maybe not 100%. Clearly not something F1 would (or should do).

At the end of the day. I appreciate the enthusiasm for the throwback big V8 engines in F1. I love the sound as well. I can still vividly remember the sound of a Corvette C7.R GTE flying by when on full throttle with a purpose built pushrod V8. It sounds awesome (nearly deafening!). GTE did it and I think the lower LMP series used the Corvette GTE engine as a spec engine for awhile until the recent switch to the Gibson engine I mentioned earlier.

Stock block (or designs that have dimensions based upon stock block and labelled as "stock") is extremely unlikely to ever happen again in F1. When was the last? BMW M12 1.5L turbo four in the late 1980's? Over 30 years ago?

Richard
Richard C is online now  
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Current F1 Power Supply Units Mike Harte Formula One 467 2 Aug 2016 16:58
2014 Power Units Mike Harte Formula One 1 21 May 2014 19:20
Rescue units staid davenport Marshals Forum 11 14 Jan 2007 12:43
Radar units Pug620 Road Car Forum 7 28 Oct 2004 15:36
Research into trackside rescue units SJ Spode Marshals Forum 14 7 Feb 2002 09:19


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:25.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2021 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2021-2022 Grant MacDonald. All Rights Reserved.