© 2019 MOTORSPORT NETWORK. All rights reserved.
Sign up to receive latest updates for Ferrari News, Threads, and Classifieds
Discussion in 'F1' started by rblissjr, Dec 12, 2014.
Ecclestone to propose V10 comeback for F1 on Dec. 18 | FOX Sports
One could dream!
As posted in the other thread, but this is worthy of its own IMO.
I'm sure we'll have to wait until at least 2017 for this to happen, but it's a dream come true for me. Direct injection 2.5 V10 + ERS and ~19000+ rpm rev limit.
I think just about any F1 fan will welcome back the noise of the V10.
The argument RE turbo's and efficiency that will no doubt come shortly is rather pointless IMO. Engines aren't even allowed to be developed during the season so what's there to gain? Rather let them develop the ERS system as that's atleast relevant IMO. The turbo has developed now, neat little trick by seperating the hot and cold side, other tricks already existed.
Bring on the noise. It's better for F1 and will bring fans that have left back.
It doesn't matter who comes up with it, a good idea is a good idea.
This is interesting:
"Fascinatingly, Ecclestone also said the FIA might not even be an obstacle to the move, given that president FIA president Jean Todt "sold the rights" in a recent commercial deal.
"The Strategy Group that we have got," he explained. "We made a contribution of $40 million a year to buy that actually.
"They sold the rights to have this new group set up in the way we thought it should be set up," Ecclestone added."
Exactly what "rights" are they referring to?
Not going to happen!
(They may go back to V8's one day but not V10's)
Another Fox News blunder. The video should have included clips of the current turbo V6 engines for a true comparison that would illustrate the topic at hand.
Knowing how Hecklestone works, that is probably his aim..
Hmmmm....... Hadn't thought of that! - Engine cylinder haggling!
''Fine, we'll meet halfway then. V8's!''
If eco was such a concern for these manufacturers why aren't we racing with 3 and 4 cilinders. Their ''relevant'' development argument is by definition for ****. As if they're ever going to build 13-15K rpm v6 turbo cars for the road, lol.
Why do they insist in imposing an engine configuration?
Why can't they let the engineers decide what's best for them?
Although which one is more expensive is up for debate, I guess.
Perhaps install a HP/torque limit and an N/A engine.
But then again...Money.
As I understand it, this years engines were originally planned to be in-line 4 cylinder turbo hybrids but Ferrari convinced the FIA to use V6's instead as it was more in keeping with their racing history and road car business.
Because it makes F1 easier to police and creates a more level playing field (in theory at least!), for a start off!
I like Bernie's angle here...demand 10 cylinders, plays the amiable-compromise card, lands on 8 cylinders with everyone thinking they had a say in the final decision.
Car salesmanship at its most brilliant.
AFAIK one of the big boys at Merc was given some voting right in the FIA F1 panel; then they said ''We want such and such engine configuration or we're out''.
A new engine format was coming but Ferrari and Ecclestone did not want either a 4 or 6 pot engine, but had to then at least say the V6 because that's all the choice they had. Renault was indifferent about it.
I just wish Ferrari made a little more noise regarding this issue and made a move to pull out of F1 because of the silly engine regs. If it worked for Mercedes, who is actually a nobody in F1 terms, why can't it work for Ferrari?
F1 had a problem with the turbo before because it cost two much . Where this all went wrong is when the max started passing rule with out getting the teams to sign off on these changes he use safety to force changes . Bernie will get v 10 back next year because most teams will sign off on it my guess it will be approved by early February . By the new rules you can't develop the turbo anyway just start work on the the new engine . Heck honda doesn't have a engine that will run bernie can go to cosworth and pay to have a engine built and rent them to small teams . I said a couple of months ago this would happen
I actually think Merc has more pull than Ferrari in today's arena. Yes, I cannot imagine an F1 world without teamred, but in the same token, teamred remaining in the F1 doesn't really attract newer competition / prospects.
Now that Merc is in the arena and utterly dominated, they can now flaunt / take it to their longtime rivals in all other motorsports (BMW, AUDI, PORSCHE etc). They've entered new territory and conquered and that bragging right I believe is something their direct competition won't like living down. And the only way they're going to be able to put it to bed is to try to enter F1 and challenge...
There are already rumors of a VW/Audi entry into F1. And if they come in, I'm sure BMW will be right there as well.
Why? What makes V-10s or any other configuration any less desirable for the rules makers?
Limit DISPLACEMENT and leave the configuration the constructors I say. We might then see something interesting.
Ah, level schmevel. I thought this was top tier racing.
Can't play? Go home.
This just flies in the face of what a top tier series OUGHT to be. Might as well have an under stressed FIA provided lump with factory engineers monitoring remotely ready to pull the plug so "their" engines never fail. Didn't champ car do this? That was exciting stuff.
Limiting displacement can effectively reduce speeds in the interest of safety while leaving resourceful engineers to build differing engines.
A quote from the article is this:
"He said he will table the matter at the Dec. 18 meeting of the powerful Strategy Group." I hate the fact that this new generation of "hip" reporters decides to use language of their own making. They think that when one "tables" a matter, one is putting that matter on the table for discussion.
In reality, when one "tables" a matter, one is deferring it for a future time, and NOT discussing it now. It is actually the opposite meaning that they intend.
I had a guy, just yesterday, use the following sentence in a conversation. Referring to a client who had a clear understanding of an issue, he said "Bill is nonplussed by the new proposal." (Meaning he was not surprised or worried about the proposal.) I looked at him and said, "Why is he confused about the proposal, it was very clear." My employee said, "He was not confused. He understood it." I said, "You said he was nonplussed." Anyhow, my employee had to look up the word and realized he was using the opposite meaning of the word.
An engineering friend of mine told me that the V-10 is actually the optimal blend of size, displacement and power to maximize power and minimize problems. Something about the engine harmonics, the vibrations, etc. Apparently, the V-8 does not have the same power and the V-12 is a more violent engine that can break itself apart easier.
The budget issue wasn't why turbo's died the death first time round!
Whilst development cost did rise rapidly, the biggest problem with the turbo cars was that the power outputs were going to mental levels and the drivers were barely hanging on to the cars!
Why would Mercedes sign off on an engine that instantly gives away their advantage?
Why would McLaren sign off on an engine that their new engine partner has no experience with, and who have just invested a fortune in the new V6 turbo hybrid engine? (and why do you think Honda were tempted to come back to F1?)
Why would Ferrari want to go back to V10 engines?
Why would Renault, who had all of their biggest successes with V8 engines, want to go to V10 engines?
It's a tad early to be completely writing off Honda just yet, and it's an over-simplification to think that Cosworth can just come straight back into F1 and supply various teams who already have long term contracts with other engine suppliers.
Getting a bit ahead of yourself there Bubba! - It hasn't happened yet, and My monies on it not happening at all!
Here's a secret that not many seem to understand: Bernie does not run all of F1! (otherwise we wouldn't have V6 turbo hybrids would we? - Think about it! )
V8's produce better low-end torque than a V10 but less top-end power, and V12's are actually more naturally balanced than a V10 and generate a lot less natural vibration!
(When Ferrari first went to V10's they failed to understand the vibration characteristics of the engine and initially struggled with it - Michael Schumacher lost a complete drive shaft whilst going down the Canadian GP pit-lane because the vibrations from the engine had completely loosened off all of the retaining bolts!
At first they thought the bolts hadn't been tightened correctly but it later transpired that they had been tightened correctly but the harmonics from the engine had loosened them!)
Back in the mid 90s the best engines where V10's, back when configuration was still open (we had V8's, V10's and V12's by the stubborn Italians). By 97, all but the poorest teams used V10s until the FIA made the V10 mandatory...then it was just a case of figuring out which angle was the best (I remember seeing 72, 90 and 111 over the years...any others?).
And they had the most glorious noise (although I wouldn't be angry with a V12 ).