v8's to make F1 cars faster

[Kev_205]

now heres a thought:
surely the v8 has been raced for so many years and so many series that it should be easier to get lots of power out compared to the v10's just due to the amount of data and knowledge and experience with this type of engine!
Obviously lighter too so is changing to this engine a complete waste of time?

[Kicking-back]

The V8 will offer substanially less power than the V10 initially.

It's not quite as simple as you suggest there.

After all - the teams have 15 years worth of data and knowledge of V10s - and at the time there was still a free choice they all opted for V10s rather than V8s.

[shiny side up!]

There is no replacement for displacement!

[Adam43]

The main difference is that the engine size is being reduced. Also the technology in the engine is not only dependant on the configuration and is transferable between configurations. Generally more pots allow more power for the same size, although there are disadvantages too (e.g. fuel economy).

[Super Tourer]

Apparently Cosworth have their tested their V8 engine on the dyno at 800 BHP and they believe that 850 BHP is possible.

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=23547

[Adam43]

That is good, a decent amount of power.

[Super Tourer]

www.grandprix.com ran a piece on lap times last week.


http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14277.html


In July last year the Formula 1 technical directors got together on the orders of FIA President Max Mosley to cut three seconds a lap from the Formula 1 lap times in 2005. The teams were keen to avoid having Mosley's own ideas imposed on them and, as a result, there was an unusual degree of agreement. The FIA accepted the proposals as being just was what needed but seven months later and the lap times being recorded in Spain make it clear that the rule changes are not even close to the target that was set. Lap times are not three seconds a lap slower. In Barcelona Giancarlo Fisichella's time yesterday of 1m14.408s is only six-tenths off Takuma Sato's 2004 record of 1m13.797s.

Of course there is still the argument that the cars would be faster still without the changes, however at best they will be pegged.

On the engine front.

Last year Mosley said that a switch to 2.4-litre V8s would drop horsepower to 650 bhp. Our talks with engine designers suggest that the figure at which they will start development on V8s is going to be around 800bhp and the ultimate potential of the engines is higher than the V10s for the simple reason that a shorter crankshaft will reduce the problems associated with longer cranks and so it will be easier for the engine men to find more power.

In reality, the FIA needs to stop trying to outhink the teams, they have a combined research resource of probably $2bn per annum and employ all the top technical brains - the FIA has nothing by comparison.

If reducucing speeds is seriously on the agenda (and not a smoke screen for some other motive), then it's increasingly obvious that a control tyre is the only effective method.

[Glen]

850 bhp would almost certainly add up to faster than the current cars, because I believe a reduction in weight limit is also on the cards. V8s would also be more compact and hence allow a faster car through better weight distribution and aerodynamics. Even if further materials restrictions come in, something like 800bhp, or even 750, would still be more than enough - I don't remember the sport being slow when they "only" had 750bhp.

Greater experience of V8s over the years is irrelevant, I think.

[Glen]

ST - my post crossed with yours. Interesting comments there. I agree, a control tyre and probably a rev limit (or conventional valve springs) are inevitable if controlling speeds and costs are seriously on the agenda.

[RWC]

The thought counts but no-it doesn't work quite like that

Before mad mosely ruled that 3L V10s must be used by everyone ,most teams had chosen the V10 configuration anyway
The only significant thing different about a V10 is getting the vibration sorted and even that is no drama.
Sure, you have to make some componants stronger if you choose a particularly vibration prone configuration but the trade offs are well worth it because a V10 simply allows higher revs (which means more power)

V12's allow even more power but the problems they'd bring to modern f1 (too long,too thirsty) probably aren't worth it

If any number of cylinders were allowed again cosworth would be the only one to choose V8's-and they'd be slower than the V10's for sure
They made a great V8 in '94 but that year only renault were serious opposition

[Adam43]

It would be interesting to see which configuration the manufacturers would have chosen if the rule change was only the reduction in capacity. Maybe the smaller size would have made a V8 more viable.

I don't that the reduction in physical size and weight (and all the knock on advantages) is enough to overcome the power loss. Even if they are only losing about 100bhp. The last time the rules were free, most teams didn't chose a V8 over a V10 - even of teh same capacity.

[RWC]

wow,talk about crossed posts-i didnt even see any posts before i wrote mine

VERY good points super tourer

The fia HAVE to set guidelines that work instead of irritating the h*ll out of the teams and fans
On the power front there is the simplest solution ever-just have the cars run fuel flow valves.
Modern fuel metering controlers are stageringly accurate and it would give complete control to the governing body.
Engines making too much power? Then cut back the grams fuel per second flow rate for the next year.

***EASY***

And of course having the engine manufacturers working seriously on the power/economy equation would be seen in good light in this modern world

Hey, they could even allow any engine /size configuration because it wouldn't matter what engine the car had!

Of course they would have to restrict or ban engines that road cars would never run anyway (like turbines) and decide what to do about turbo/super charging (ban them or not?-there are serious fuel usage and engine size advantages.It would depend on wether it had a future in road cars)

[Hazza]

Originally Posted by RWC

The thought counts but no-it doesn't work quite like that

Before mad mosely ruled that 3L V10s must be used by everyone ,most teams had chosen the V10 configuration anyway
The only significant thing different about a V10 is getting the vibration sorted and even that is no drama.
Sure, you have to make some componants stronger if you choose a particularly vibration prone configuration but the trade offs are well worth it because a V10 simply allows higher revs (which means more power)

V12's allow even more power but the problems they'd bring to modern f1 (too long,too thirsty) probably aren't worth it

If any number of cylinders were allowed again cosworth would be the only one to choose V8's-and they'd be slower than the V10's for sure
They made a great V8 in '94 but that year only renault were serious opposition

Honda also made a very very handy V8.

Ferrari said that around the time of the rule change they were looking at doing a V10, which is a pitty as the V12 was awwwsssooommmeee \m/

[Dani Filth]

Honda V8 ?? . the last Honda V8 i remember was in 69 .. not that i was alive then

it's gonna be interesting to see who will get the V8 right . probably all constructors will use a 90 degree V8 ..

[Kicking-back]

They'll have to make it 90 degrees - that's in the rules.

On the issue of controlling speeds - we must have a control tyre.

[JohnSSC]

Well, the FIA were almost right: they have managed to reduce lap speeds by 3 seconds. The only difficulty is that the three seconds came from the improvement over the previous season's times that we have been seeing!

I really like RWC's fuel metering solution. Think about it: build whatever you want configuration-wise up to a specified displacement that utilizes X-capacity fuel flow. It would encourage innovation that would lead to power and efficiency and also keep F1 at the technology forefront.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

They'll have to make it 90 degrees - that's in the rules.

On the issue of controlling speeds - we must have a control tyre.

Agreed,control tyre is the only way to go in order to control lap times.

It won't be too long before the V8s reach V10 power and your back to square one.

It should be the responsibility of the tyre company to ensure lap times are kept in check.

The tyres will have to cope with ever increasing power and may have to last for more than one GP-a little bit more "real world".

[StickShift]

If we get a control tyre, It will be interesting who gets the contract. There will be a strong movement to choose neither Bridgestone or Michelin, and instead go with a third party. So, we'll probably have a Korean manufacturer...

Kumho-Ferrari doesn't sound right!

[Marbot]

Probably a well known Chinese tyre company will get the contract.

Shi-Ting tyres for example.

[toot toot]

Motorsport is about speed, f1 is the pinnacle of world motorsport. Why try to think of ways to slow it down?

[gttouring]

V8's faster? well perhaps in time, if they can get it to rev and make up for lost displacement and cylinders, but the issuee as is obvious is the tyre situation- good move to control cost and speed, but a spec tyre? the speeds will drop to champcar level (hardly slow by any means) at montreal already we are 3 seconds closer to them or are they now 4 seconds closer to F1?) with a control tyre, i bet they can dop the times more

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by toot toot

Motorsport is about speed, f1 is the pinnacle of world motorsport. Why try to think of ways to slow it down?

If Motorsport was solely about speed we'd all be watching dragster racing and yet it is a minority sport.

Speed is relative,we've all done 500mph on planes and 200mph on trains.

Adding speed to something doesn't always make it more exciting.

[N I Tram]

Exactly Martyn, things like speedway and touring cars can be much more thrilling than Formula 1, even though they're nowhere near as fast.

Even if V8s are faster by 2007 than V10s were in 2004, they won't be faster than V10s would've been in 2004. JohnSSC has touched on it - regulations don't usually cut speeds as such, they merely prevent the speeds going out of hand. If limits hadn't been placed on turbo engines, driver aids and newer computer technology, the cars would be lapping at less than 1 minute on some tracks (and would be even more prohibitively expensive to race).

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by RWC

The thought counts but no-it doesn't work quite like that

Before mad mosely ruled that 3L V10s must be used by everyone ,most teams had chosen the V10 configuration anyway

That's not totally true. Toyota wanted to debute with a V12. And Ferrari also wanted to use the V12 again. Ferrari even tested a new V12. But the FIA decided to force teams using a 3000cc V10, because Mosley was scared that the costs would increase.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Agreed,control tyre is the only way to go in order to control lap times.

Yeah, but Formula 1 needs more mechanical grip. Introducing a controled tyre, would mean less mechanical grip and a increase of the importance of aerodynamical grip.