What do you think of the proposed V8 F1 formula?

Not a bad idea, reminds of the last years of the turbos in the eighties.

Race distance (300 km) and fuel type (98 octane, pump station fuel) would need to be defined as well.

And I can see it already coming: The Ferraris leading at Imola, but telemetry shows the fuel won't last. A quick call from Ross Brawn and Rubens all of a sudden looses it in Aqua Minerale with 5 laps to go. The safety car gets deployed, on the wheel Nicola Larini. The SC turns in really slow laps and pulls off the track with 1 lap to go, Michael wins with fumes in his tank...


(Insert similar scenario for Silverstone with Mc Laren leading, Magny Cours and Monaco with Renault leading etc etc).

 

Well, for all you speed freaks, enjoy the 2004 Formula 1 season while it lasts, because the new regulations are going to ensure that it'll be the quickest season for a long long time!

Much like the raw speed of the 1993 season wasn't matched until 2000/2001 or thereabouts.

 

That might be true technically, but you don't really see it, so who cares? They will never look slow.

 

The speed freaks (who like statistics).

 

Ah, them. The same people who compare lap times over the years on tracks that have been altered in their layout or surface. The same people who count and compare driver points despite different systems introduced over the year. Savy.

 

Enough already. This is what is wrong with ALL forms of racing today. In the "old days" before media involvement it was just men and machines doing what they loved to do and that was put a car on the track and RACE and who ever crossed the finish line first won. When I started racing we were what they called weekend racers. We all held jobs and worked nights on car. All the people involved did what they were good at. That is how teamwork started. One man was good on chassis and that is all he did. Another was good on assembly that is all he did, another good with body work, another with drivetrain. Another who underdstood all and make suggestions on how to improve it overall. Then the driver told you what he thought should be done. In the end if you had a good team you won races. You didn't have to have a good camera side as no one knew how to operate one.

At one time our teams consisted of the following race vechiles, drag, oval, motorcycles, go karts, stock car, off road, demo derby, tractor pulling, monster trucks, ice racing. We only had three major sponsors and they didn't provide gobs of cash, one hotel chain who covered our rooms, United Van Lines who provided all the trucks for hauling, and Labatt's who supplied the "go juice" for the crew. The firm that I worked for supplied all the fuel as I was involved in alternative fuel research so the only way I knew to properly test was to go racing. When I told them that we would cover all bases of fuel and then assembled all the team and vechiles, they had no choice but to say yes. And yes, we did use the magic juice in the race cars and haulers. Put it this way, the magic juice that I helped formulate made all the diesel trucks more powerfull, and all the gas motors ran cooler and had a noticable increase in power. All the team members covered all the other costs from our own pockets. We didn't make tons of money but boy did we have fun. And when NHRA said to us that we had to run a certain gear ratio in the top fuel dragsters, we all chuckled to ourselves as the ratio they wanted made the engine work harder which is what NITRO motors love!! Speeds increased by at least 5mph top end.

This brings back to the orginal point of this discussion, racing was born orginally for men to have fun with their toys. I say this for F1.

1. Have a fixed CID engine. V10, V12 or V8. As long as it is of the FIXED CID its ok.

2. Any transmission fixed at 7 speeds. No computer shifting. Make the drivers DRIVE the car.

3. Keep the current traction controls in place.

4. Keep the pit stops. This makes the racing more interesting and helps keeping everyone guessing as to who is doing what.

5. Keep the current engine rules as to qualifying and racing on the same engine. This makes for more reliable engines for all the teams.

6. Qualifying is as follows, 1 warm up lap, 3 hot laps. You race with the fuel that is left in the tanks after qualifying.

7. Make Bernie drive the Saftey Car. This should provide comedy relief in high tension races!!!

 

I don't like guessing who is doing what. If you want to keep pit stops, make the amount of fuel loads visible to the spectators via telemetry feeds.

Pole positions should be meaningful. Allow for refueling before the race.

Bernie was a racer himself. He might actually be not to bad. And if he crashes, everybody wins...

 

8. No TURBOS.

9. Brake Ducts: As big as necessary to allow PROPER cooling of the brakes, why make it go fast if you can't stop? Keep the brake pad area as big as necessary to allow the brakes to last the race.

10. Paint every car red. This will create more confusion when it comes to announce who won, no it was the red acr with stripes, no it was the red one with dots.

11. Have Bernie build a wind tunnel to test the air coming out of officials mouths with all the new rules, anyone who can recite the entire rule book while standing beside a F1 car at top speed and be heard will be the head rule man!!

12. Bring the FUN back into racing. Too many rules take the fun out of the sport for all those involved, that means you and me, for it is us who help support the efforts of the teams by buying products and making websites for all of us bench racers to tell them how to do it properly.

 

Also I forgot to add to my earlier post...

The teams now have six weeks to discuss the proposals and come up with their own suggestions for the future of F1. If, as seems entirely possible, at least eight of them cannot reach agreement, Mosley and the FIA will use a clause in the Concorde Agreement, implemented after the deaths of Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger in 1994, to force through the above changes on the grounds of safety.

So given that there is no way 10 F1 teams can make up their mind and agree, we are almost certain to see that next season
- One engine will have to last two races
- and a move to V8 engines or rev limiters by the season following that.

Formula 1 with engine power restricted by means of a rev limiter!!!!! I never thought I would see the day.

I am not too worried about the fact that there wil be rev limiters or that there will be V8 engine restrictions. I am pissed off at the fact that there will be any engine limitations at all. The constructors should be given full freedom to put any type V8, V10, v12... whatever they want. The only restriction that should be there is a 2.4 litre engine.

Do they ever consider what the real fans want? Do they ever have focus groups to understand what our expectations are?

THIS IS ABSOLUTE RUBBISH!!!!

 

If they want to (a) cut costs and (b) slow the cars then:

Use any engine you want. Any number of cyls, any displacement.

Cars must have a minimum weight.

No carbon fiber brakes. No ABS. No exotic materials. If it ain't on a street car, it ain't in F1.

If you can't stop, you can only go just so fast.

 

Can't say I know any, but hey, I'm sure they exist.

 

The new 2.4 litre V8's should be putting out around 700 - 750bhp, so that's roughly equivalent to 1999 / 2000 power levels.

Of course we're now going to have tyres which are meant to last the whole race, correct? That'll make things alot slower again. I'm gonna miss the tyre stops.

 

Lope

I have to agree with you. I touched on this point a little earlier. I like the gratuitous horsepower. The horsepower is not the problem. The aero and tires are the problem. They are suggesting reducing downforce 25% which will make a big difference. Plus restricting the tires which should reduce lap times 2-3 seconds which puts them right where the FIA claims they need to be.

I wish the teams would fight the V-8 rule. The V-8's are not cheaper. A V-8 at 18,500 is not as sweet as a V-10 at 18,500, which isn't as sweet as a V-12 at 18,500. The sound is a big part of F1 for me.

I like BMW's proposal to make the engines 6 race packages or something similar. That will bring down Hp and still give us the wonderful scream of the V-10's. You know the drivers rather have the additional Hp. Part of being a driver at the top level should include the ability to manage the horsepower effectively.

On that point, I have already made plans for next years Indy. I want to hear the V-10 one last time, just in case the FIA ignores my obviously well informed opinion

 

Did you also go and hear the v12's for the last time?

Some of these posts are rediculous. An F1 v8 engine will be a beautiful thing, and yep sure it will not sound exactly the same, but the difference between the v12's and v10's were bugger all.

I very much support reducing the engine size. One of the things that suck about CART and IRL is the engines are way too big and thus the rest of the world laugh at the pathetic HP levels they are getting with a turbo large motor.

The best F1 racing the world has ever seen was the 1.5 ltr formula of the 60's. If you look at the races and who raced, the number of WC's, number of winners ... by far the most competitive ... which makes great racing.

F1 is not about straight line speed ... it is about lap speed. With a 2.4 ltr motor in a couple of years they will be turning fantastic lap times ... and again very impressive for a 2.4 ltr engine.

I do not want F1 to end up with a massive hp over handling issue like CART and IRL. F1 should be the peak of everything ... thus this requires balance, and thus more hp just means more traction control and less throttle. Hardly the peak of that area then.

We do not need to keep lowering lap times, we need to push engineering boundaries and driver skill levels and competitiveness. I like the challenge of a reduced engine size to make the teams relook at the engine ... instead of always chasing aero gains ... which is all it seems the engineers do now-a-days.

What I would also like banned is the fly-by-wire throttles ... that would reduce hp massively as they would have to start designing drivable engines again instead of just peak hp motors we currently have. This would also mean the drivers would have to return to being able to control the throttle.

Pete

 

I'm pretty irritated with the FIA's proposed regulations. F1 is for me, not just a racing series, but a forum to have the greatest engineers in the world make huge innovations based on what rules they have. We've seen it with the advent of carbon ceramic brakes, sequential gearboxes, carbon fibre construction, and so much more. However, the latest FIA proposals seek to destroy the innovation which is inherent in F1, by over-regulating every minute aspect of the cars. Within the old rules, engineers had loose enough boundaries to be able to make massive breakthroughs and gain advantages over other teams, whether it be by shedding a few pounds here and there, gaining little bits of power in the engine, making the brakes work better and more efficiently, having more downforce with less drag, whatever it may be. Then the other teams struggle to catch up, and make their own improvements, and so on. This game of technical cat-and-mouse is one of the biggest things which draws me personally to watch F1, and the FIA's latest proposals seek to eliminate the technical creativity that IS F1.

 

I'm pretty irritated with the FIA's proposed regulations. F1 is for me, not just a racing series, but a forum to have the greatest engineers in the world make huge innovations based on what rules they have. We've seen it with the advent of carbon ceramic brakes, sequential gearboxes, carbon fibre construction, and so much more. However, the latest FIA proposals seek to destroy the innovation which is inherent in F1, by over-regulating every minute aspect of the cars. Within the old rules, engineers had loose enough boundaries to be able to make massive breakthroughs and gain advantages over other teams, whether it be by shedding a few pounds here and there, gaining little bits of power in the engine, making the brakes work better and more efficiently, having more downforce with less drag, whatever it may be. Then the other teams struggle to catch up, and make their own improvements, and so on. This game of technical cat-and-mouse is one of the biggest things which draws me personally to watch F1, and the FIA's latest proposals seek to eliminate the technical creativity that IS F1.

 

I was up at Road America on Friday and got the opportunity to hear different generations of F1 engines at the same time. Naturally, most were variants of the Ford Cosworth, but they ranged from the mid 70's up to '94. There was also a '96 Jordan with its original Peugeot V10, something the owner apparently sold his soul to obtain. Anyway, the '83 Williams was really pushing around the track, and still sounded as sweet as it did two decades ago. I can only imagine what they could do with that configuration today if it were to become the standard formula.

I think any rules requiring engine longevity are crap. And once again, get rid of the damn refueling. When Schumacher's post-race comments mention how they were fortunate not to have to overtake anyone on the track, then there's a problem with the series.

 

I was there Friday and Saturday. On Friday, I brought a friend who had not been there before. We were eating lunch (brats and brewski, or course) during the practice session for F-1, Indy, F-5000 cars, etc. My friend was seated with his back to the mainstraight, contentedly eating, for a minute while various cars drove by, until one of the V-12 Ferraris went by. He stood up, said "I'm sitting on the wrong side of the table" and sat down on the other side, facing the main straight.

'nuff said on that point. . .

 

I am not sure how to respond to this query. I did go to the 1981 Las Vegas Grand Prix, while not being the last time a V-12 ran, it was the only time I got to hear the Matra V-12. Which to my purely subjective opinion was the most fantastic racing sound I have ever heard. Wouldn't a better question to consider be: If you didn't attend a Grand Prix this year, will you make a special effort to attend one in 2006 when the V-8's are mandated, just because you prefer the formula?

I find it a little strange that you have taken a subjective opinion and declared it an objective position. To claim the difference in the sound between V-10 and V-12 is "bugger" is a bit presumptive. If I prefer the sound of the 3.0 liter V-12 over the 3.0 liter V-10 from a purely emotional standpoint, I find your statement rather non-sensical. It would be the same if I said I don't really care what color you like, but if you don't like blue, you're bugger.

You have presented a fallacy of Complex Cause. Just because the IRL and CART have engines you consider too large, it does not follow that they suck. The reason IRL and CART suck, could be any number of reasons. Possibly the only reason they suck is that your subjective opinion reasons it to be so. By the way, the reason the IRL and CART have "pathetic" HP levels is due ONLY to the regulations artificially enforced by the rules. (ie boost levels for CART)

Once again, a subjective statement presented as objective fact. I can just as easily state the best racing in F1 history was when the 3.0 liter Cosworth was the dominate engine. I can point to the great champions of the era, along with the reliability of the package. Does this adequately refute your position?

This does not support your position. If the 2.4 liter engine begins turning "fantastic" lap speeds, the only solution, by following your logic, is to reduce the engine size once again. Possibly a 2.0 liter four cylinder will reduce the lap speeds enough to once again make for less than "fantastic" lap times. Or if that isn't enough, a 3 cylinder 1.0 liter.

Once again, you commit the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. Suggesting F1 will end up like IRL and CART just because of engine size is an unsupportable position. F1 engines are not currently boosted powerplants. They are not analgous, and suggesting such is like comparing apples (FI) to mandarin oranges ( boosted CART) and rotten oranges (methanol running IRL)

The aero situation, along with the tires, is the biggest issue for the ever decreasing lap times. The F1 teams have submitted to the FIA a course of action that addresses this concern. Once again, you need to present evidence that the current engine standard is unworkable in reducing lap times. The FIA has not presented any such evidence as of yet. Max Mosely has simply submitted a working proposal that includes engine reduction. He has not presented a specific HP target.

I do not disagree with this point. However, the current involvement by major manufacturers drives the technology of F1. If Honda, Toyota, BMW, and Mercedes, wish to pursue the technology that helps them sell cars, then you can be certain that the rules will reflect that desire.

 

Sduke,

Good answer, but I am not doing a good job at explaining my point. With current engine technology the sound is pretty close to purely the frequency of the combustion process. Thus a v10 at 18,000 rpm would sound very similar to a v8 at (10/8 * 18,000) = 22,500 rpm because that is what our ears hear, ie. the frequency not that it is v10 or v8.

I must say I am against the FIA setting a number of cylinders ... but I also do not see why everybody appears to have an emotional connection to a v10. Again IMO nothing special about a 10 cylinder engine ... just happens to have the right sized cooling arrangement, fuel usage, etc.

Another good point, but what I was trying to say is that I heard the v12 Ferraris and I have heard the v10 Ferraris ... to my ears there was/is very little difference. Not enough to fall on your sword over and declare F1 now rubbish because we no longer can have v12 engines. This appears to be the main anti-v8 argument ... ie. the sound will not be as good ... I am questioning that!

Though, again the FIA should just restrict engine size nothing else IMO

What I was saying is that CART and IRL obviously have controlled hp levels. One way of doing this is to be brave and restrict engine size and thus push engineers. Another way is to simply throw in restrictions on over large engines, like very low boost levels. Thus IMO CART and IRL are going about this the easy and embarrassing way, and I do not want F1 to do this. If you read the FIA regulations for the 2.4 ltr v8 engine, it specifies the maximum bore, the crank size and many, many other things to control hp and the use of exotic materials, etc.
What the FIA should do is simply agree that a certain hp figure will provide the slow down or lap speed they want and then set a cc size based on that.

Thus if FIA want to restrict to say 600hp, then give the engineers a challenge and set the cc size to 2 ltr's say. Do NOT set a size and then moan about the hp afterwards and bring in stupid anti-advancing restrictions, like restricting the maximum bore, etc.

No IMO. The most competitive era can be judged by the number of WC's on the grid. One can assume that if you are an ex-WC that you have the ability to get to the top. Thus the more WC's on the grid means the more high ability drivers and winners you have challenging each other. This modern era has to be seen as the worst or least competitive era due to the fact that we only have one WC on the grid and he also is just about the only race winner on the grid.

Absolutely. F1 is supposed to be about giving engineers a challenge, thus once they start producing too much hp with the 2.4 ltr, then yes give them a challenge and reduce the engine size. Would you rather the FIA enforced the use of pushrod production based engines instead, or even side valves instead to keep the hp down?
Remember back in the early 1900's the top racing engines were something like 14 ltrs ... should we have stayed that big ... NO, ofcourse not we constantly need to reduce as we get cleverer and advance our technology.

But it is Sduke. Many want to maintain the 3 ltr v10 arrangment and the only way to reduce hp and slow the cars is to make them last longer ... that is going in exactly the same direction as the IRL and CART, ie. overly large engines that are unstressed. I would rather we stick with rocket ship engines that were the peek of the current technology, than lazy over strong engines that can do 6 races ... and maybe put straight in the next Mercedes saloon car

Agree with all you have said here, but I do not want to end up with standard wings and standard side pods, etc. Much more exciting for me and others that like engineers to come up with different solutions to specify 100% flat bottoms, hp target, etc. The aero situation looks like all the teams will be queuing up for delivery of their wing packages and then just go and bolt them on ... very soon we will have all the cars exactly the same ... vey sad.

Pete's opinion

 

We are quickly reaching consensus here. I can tell the difference in engines, so for my subjective impression, I will miss the V10's just like I miss the beautiful song of the Matra V12. Moving to 2.4 ltr V8's will not kill F1. I will just miss a sound that is very close to euphoric for me personally. Mine is wholly an emotional response and as such is worthless to all but me. I just know what I like.

I agree with this completely. I do not enjoy CART or IRL specifically because they chose the NASCAR low-tech solution that rewards poor engineering. It is a lazy formula for innovatively challenged engineers. Twenty year old technology holds no interest for me.

Here is where I will agree to disagree. One can simply refer to the 91 season when Senna, Mansell, Prost, Hakkinen, Schumacher, and Piquet were all racing. This would tend to counter your example. I will agree very strongly that the current crop of F1 pilots is not to be considered very strong. But, in defense of the current grid, if Ferrari were not so completely dominate, possibly the impression of driver quality would be somewhat different.

Once again, we have more in common, rather than less. I do however, remember the glory days of the original Can-Am and I still have a softspot for irrational horsepower. I grew up with Bruce McLaren, Denny Hulm, Jim Hall, and Mark Donahue. I know it is nuts, but I miss the raw hp and the rampant technology that Can-Am brought to racing.

I can't assume to defend the current V10 if cutting speed is the ONLY consideration. The problem I have is that the V8 is also being touted as a cost cutting measure. This is where my objections arise. No one in the FIA has actually presented any evidence that moving to V8's will in any way reduce costs. If the FIA had insisted upon the V8 purely as a safety issue, I don't believe there would be the firestorm of disagreement that has been evidenced. I agree that I prefer a smaller engine with no restrictions to a larger engine that is artificially strangled. My biggest concern revolves around the distinguishing features of F1. If the current estimates I have read that F3000 is approaching 650 hp, what makes the estimated 700 in a F1 V8 worth the additional enormous expense? Remembering that cost is one of Max's big complaints. This is a real issue that needs to be addressed in public with input from the participants and the fans. After all, the teams build the cars, the drivers risk their lives, and the fans pay the bills. All should be heard from. The FIA shouldn't unilaterally impose rules unless safety is compromised. The fact remains that the aero and tires are bigger factors in the ever shrinking lap times than the engine.

I will cease to be a fan of F1 if such a standardized formula were ever implemented. I would hope the majority of fans would agree. A spec series, no matter if they call it F1 or F-whatever, would be no better than IRL, CART, or god forbid, NASCAR! If the FIA were to enforce such a standard it would be worse than sad....it would be criminal. The thing I love about F1 is that the teams build their own cars and solve problems using their own engineering. This breeds innovation. This sort of excercise brings out the tusk nosed Williams, multi-element wings, and even six wheeled Tyrrell's. The absolute anti-F1 position would be NASCAR where no matter what "brand" car you drive, they still fit the same template. Oh yeah, that's innovative!

I hope the situation is resolved and F1 can get on with the task of putting on a better show.

And a fine opinion it is

 

Fair enough, motor racing is a very emotional sport ... and sound is a big part of that ... and you are right, we are talking the same language and on the same page.

Arh, you have me there I had forgotten about Piquet ... another good period of competitive F1. Not sure if the cars were as even then, but based on my method of judging competitiveness, a very good year.

Again fair enough. Being a Kiwi I never got to see these cars race, but still lust after them because of Bruce McLaren and Hulme ...

Hmmm, I thought that they wanted to reduce engine size for safety reasons and thus chose the 2.4 ltr v8 because it simply involves cutting 2 cylinders of the current v10's and thus no changes in bore/stroke, etc. Thus while not a cost cutting exercise, definitely not a cost INCREASING exercise because they can continue their combustion chamber development with the same bore/stroke ratio. Imagine how expensive it would be if they specified say 2.6 ltrs ... that would be a clean sheet exercise.

This is a very good and correct comment. I do not have the answers. I would love to go as far as banning wings, but commercially they are seen as great advertising space

F1 is so close to a standardized formula at the moment I am struggling with whether to continue my support or not, especially because of the pitstop passing embarrassment (IMO).

Yes these debates do cause the focus to be lost a bit and we are definitely seeing a few teams misfiring at the moment.

Thanks for the interesting discussion
Pete's opinion

 

Just say no....