© 2018 MOTORSPORT NETWORK. All rights reserved.
Sign up to receive latest updates for Ferrari News, Threads, and Classifieds
Discussion in 'F1' started by intrepidcva11, Apr 4, 2017.
What did all those great sounding engines rev at... not 12,000.
Actually when the 3.5L NA engines replaced the 1.5L turbo's in 1988 the engines were in the 11-12,000 rpm range. By 1990 they were up to circa 13,000rpm and we were giddy at these insane high revs. Those engines sounded absolutely amazing. Even by the mid 90's I think they were still in the mid teens (x1000). 12,000rpm can sound amazing when the energy is allowed to escape. With the MGU-H they are working at recovering as much of that exhaust heat energy as they can. In the process they sound like (insert favorite jibe here). IF you doubt that a V6 turbo engine can sound good at circa 12,000rpm (ish) go and listen to some clips of the greatest F1 car ever built, the 1988 MP4/4
I mean Ferrari's own 126 with it's turbo v6 sounds very nice also.
Maybe the MGU-H could be optional...like KERS was for a bit.
The Buck Rogers cars could have a spaceship graphic on the side...the cavemen would carry big clubs in the cockpit.
It sounds good, but I still like the F2004 sound and it's arguably the greatest F1 car ever built.
this video always gets me emotional.
Much Respect Honda.
Mugh optional I don't think anyone would hesitate in not take after all its a system that allows no lag so it's bound to be in every car.
I actually liked the V10's because they revved high, but they had a less "polite" sound than the super smooth V12's. But I'm weird like that.
Michelin are smart to see these issues. I hope they can be resolved.
Michelin has outlined two key factors in Formula 1's new tyre tender that may deter it from applying to make a return to grand prix racing.
The French company is evaluating the FIA's recently published offer for tyre manufacturers to become F1's official supplier from 2020-23.
ADAM COOPER: Why F1's new tyre plan is so complicated
Although Michelin is open to the idea of returning to F1 for the first time since 2006, it is concerned that two fundamental aspects of what the FIA wants may be too much to entice it back.
It is not happy about the fact that the first year of the tyre tender will be for 13-inch wheels, before a planned switch to its preferred 18-inch wheel size from 2021.
Michelin has made no secret of the fact that it is only interested in supplying 18-inch wheels in F1, and it has questioned the wisdom of being forced to prepare smaller wheels for one year.
A Michelin spokesperson told Autosport: "We are against 13-inch wheels because it doesn't match our vision.
"Furthermore, to have to create 13-inch wheels for one season would be a waste of time and money, and this is a pretty big blocking point."
Michelin is also uneasy about the FIA's request for high-degrading tyres.
The FIA wants two-stop races at a majority of GPs and has laid out technical requirements to achieve this through tyres that drop off in performance.
But Michelin says that its preference is for tyres that perform consistently well over a longer period, which would showcase its abilities as a manufacturer and allow drivers to push flat out.
The spokesperson added: "A tyre that wears out after a few laps is not something that we aim to produce. We are not big fans of high degradation."
Despite its concerns, Michelin will still evaluate the FIA proposal over the next few weeks and is likely to wait until the last minute to decide if it will apply for the tender.
Tyre suppliers have until August 31 to submit their bids. A decision on technical and safety compliance will be made by September 14.
F1 race director Charlie Whiting admitted last weekend that the single season requirement for 13-inch wheels was not ideal, but there was no way of avoiding it with F1's rules only changing from 2021.
Don’t understand why the FIA has to impone tyres that degrade. If anything it’s for Liberty and the teams to decide. Too much power.
Say hello to next year’s massive front wings! Say goodbye to them with the first grid start...
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
I may be alone, but I think they look fantastic...
Neither do I !!
I think the idea of "spicing up" the racing by introducing a different parameter is at the origin of the tyre situation.
By having tyres of different degradation levels, and making at least one tyre change mandatory, you force the teams to devise some stragegy on tyre choice and pit stops, that wouldn't exist otherwise.
Personally I hate it, and it makes GP more difficult to follow for me.
From a tyre manufacturer's point of view, I think it's bad publicity, and I can understand why Michelin baulk at the idea of supplying tyres that are supposed to fail !!!
Its now officially a joke lol - https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/138185/f1-could-postpone-major-engine-rules-revamp
Formula 1 may be better off delaying the introduction of new engine rules planned for 2021 so it can be sure of attracting new manufacturers, reckons Ross Brawn.
The hope was that the louder, cheaper and less-complicated regulations being put together by F1 owner Liberty Media and the current engine manufacturers would attract new entrants, with Porsche, Aston Martin, and Cosworth all considering projects.
Amid delays in framing the specifics of the rules, and the existing manufacturers' push to keep the current MGU-H, interest from potential newcomers has fallen away.
F1's managing director of motorsport Brawn has therefore mooted delaying the engine changes.
"We want to try and create a set of technical regulations on the engine which are appealing to new manufacturers coming in as well as consolidate our existing engine suppliers," said Brawn, in an interview for the Belgian Grand Prix race programme.
"And I think we just need to think of our timing on that, whether 2021 is the right time to do that, or whether it's better to keep that powder dry until we can be certain that major regulation change will bring fresh blood into the sport."
Brawn said there could still be scope to make changes in the sporting rules to level the playing field even if the main revamp is delayed.
"My feeling is that there's still quite a lot we can do on the engine side in terms of sporting regulations such as limits on dyno test time, number of upgrades during a season, consistency of specification to all customer teams etc," he added.
"On the engine, we need to decide if now is the time to have a revolution or an evolution."
Well, if the formula doesn't work, double down on keeping it. I've been calling these engines Racing Roombas for years. Then F1 came out with their new logo last fall. Is it an F, or two lower case r's? Racing Roombas 1 fits the nature of the sport quite well.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
I used to like Ross Brawn, but he’s turned into Libertys little *****.
Ross, newsflash...... F1, or Racing Roomba 1, is supposed to be the pinnacle of the sport, there shouldn’t be limits on dyno time, there shouldn’t be artificial limits on testing, there shouldn’t be an easy way into RR1. FFS listen to the real fans, not the fairweather arseholes that claim they will watch if you go green and hug trees, and buy ice creams for polar bears, because they won’t watch and they won’t care when the sport dies.
Get rid of these crap engines or make them louder and more dramatic. Simple. If some manufacturer wants to come in, the sport shouldn’t have to change for them. If I create a soccer team, they won’t drop the offside rule so that I will join a league and compete will they? No chance. I put up with the rules, or I can **** right off
..Ecept if you're a german team...than we will change the rules for you...everyone does!
Personally, I think that F1 needs to keep the engine rules as they are.
First, hybrid seems at attract constructors' involvement in F1, that cannot afford to see them leaving if the sport goes backwards in technology.
Second the initial advantage Mercedes had is being eroded, with other engine suppliers catching up by 2021, to make F1 a more level playing field.
Third, with time, the hybrid power units will be cheaper to produce, maintain, replace, etc... once past the early design and development costs.
Fourth, introducing new engine rules may see the scenario situation again, with one engine getting a head start and dominating the field for several years.
Fifth, F1 must stay hi-tec if it's to stay as the pinacle of motorsport.
If anything, F1 should concentrate on the aero where most of the money goes !!!!!
MS held the track record at Melbourne from 2004 until 2017 with a 1:24:12
In 2017 Vettel broke that record with a 1:24:11
That record held for 13 years with that "old tech" NA engine. Had they been continually developing that engine until today, along with kers, I'd bet todays cars would be even faster than they are. Different and new doesn't necessarily mean "high tech".
Comparing lap times is one way of looking at it.
But technically, a modern hybrid power unit is way ahead of the multi-cylinders atmospheric engines, in term of energy saving, fuel consumption, etc...
Have you noticed that the fuel cells in 2017 were a lot smaller than in 2004.
That's the kind of progress I am talking about, and that's what will keep Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari and Honda interested in F1, and possibly attract others.
Fans that care about fuel savings over pure speed, drama and a naturally aspirated exhaust note are few. Ever notice every time a team does a public event they always have an NA engine....never the current turbo. They're not exciting.
The aero however is a topic I think everyone agrees on.
I wouldn't mind if the F1 cars sounded like this and I thought they would with the current motors. Check out this video of the 991 Porsche GTR and this only revs to 9500 rpm"s
The fans are a fickle lot anyway; they all want something different.
What really matters in F1 are the constructors and the sponsors who pour millions every year, and want something in return.
Mercedes or Renault aren't going to spend a billion in research and development to build a new engine that replicates the one they had 15 years ago.
That wouldn't make sense; they want to experiment, develop new technology for that money, something relevent to their futur production.
If the public cannot appreciate the effort, and the achievement obtained over the last 5 years in term of efficiency, energy retrival, reduced fuel consumption , it's just too bad ...