|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
6 Jul 2021, 10:05 (Ref:4060078) | #26 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
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!!
|
|
|
6 Jul 2021, 10:12 (Ref:4060079) | #27 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,912
|
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. |
|
|
6 Jul 2021, 12:06 (Ref:4060098) | #28 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,325
|
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 |
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
6 Jul 2021, 12:09 (Ref:4060102) | #29 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,801
|
Horner commenting on the 2025+ power unit
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
|||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
6 Jul 2021, 13:19 (Ref:4060136) | #30 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
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. |
||
|
6 Jul 2021, 13:47 (Ref:4060141) | #31 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,912
|
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.
|
|
|
6 Jul 2021, 15:03 (Ref:4060166) | #32 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,923
|
Quote:
|
||
|
6 Jul 2021, 15:39 (Ref:4060173) | #33 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,912
|
Quote:
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). |
||
|
6 Jul 2021, 16:06 (Ref:4060180) | #34 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,718
|
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! |
||
__________________
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 |
6 Jul 2021, 16:13 (Ref:4060182) | #35 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,923
|
Quote:
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:
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. |
|||
|
8 Jul 2021, 12:55 (Ref:4060397) | #36 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
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. |
|
|
10 Jul 2021, 06:08 (Ref:4060582) | #37 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
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. |
||
|
10 Jul 2021, 06:56 (Ref:4060587) | #38 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
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.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2021, 12:59 (Ref:4060623) | #39 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
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. |
||
|
12 Jul 2021, 03:16 (Ref:4060795) | #40 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
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.
|
|
|
12 Jul 2021, 07:23 (Ref:4060804) | #41 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 979
|
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:
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. |
|
__________________
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. |
12 Jul 2021, 09:56 (Ref:4060814) | #42 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
12 Jul 2021, 10:38 (Ref:4060818) | #43 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,801
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
12 Jul 2021, 13:31 (Ref:4060825) | #44 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
12 Jul 2021, 15:54 (Ref:4060843) | #45 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
I realise my idea is simplistic but it would not cost a million dollars a PU either.
|
|
|
12 Jul 2021, 16:02 (Ref:4060846) | #46 | ||||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,801
|
Quote:
Quote:
So I am giving you a hard time above, to make my point that your earlier quote... Quote:
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:
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:
Richard |
||||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
13 Jul 2021, 01:43 (Ref:4060877) | #47 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
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.
|
|
|
13 Jul 2021, 02:06 (Ref:4060880) | #48 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,801
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
13 Jul 2021, 11:59 (Ref:4060899) | #49 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
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 |
|
|
13 Jul 2021, 13:02 (Ref:4060907) | #50 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,801
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |