Ecclestone to propose V10 comeback

There was an interesting problem with McLaren back when Hakkinen and Coulthard were there. It seems that in order to save weight, McLaren had taken everything down to its smallest element. The fuel line was a thin as a straw, and the fuel pump sent the fuel down the line at a very fast rate. Blindingly fast to deliver the right quantity of fuel.

The engines were tearing themselves apart, and the McLaren engineers could not source the problem, until some bright young engineer came up with the following . . . he measured the speed of the fuel in the fuel lines and found that it was exceeding the speed of sound under full throttle.

What was happening was that the engine was being subjected to "mini sonic booms" in the fuel line which was quite literally breaking apart the engine. Once they found this problem, McLaren simply increased the bore (diameter) of the fuel line and was able to deliver the same amount of fuel at a lower flow speed.

Amazing technology, this Formula 1.

 

v12 or walk...

With KERS optional to the manufacturer.

 

Totally agree. Remember 1994? We had V8s, V10s and V12s all vying for top honors. There was a displacement limit..and somewhat other limits, but configuration was up to the team.

One team wants a 111-degree V10, some other team wants a 90 degree. Some other team thinks a turbo 4 would do the trick while another wants a 3 liter V12. I love it.

And this freeze throughout the year is just stupid. Even if they lock a configuration and rev limit, at least let the teams work on their **** throughout the year.

 

Fascinating and yes!

 

that is ****ing awesome. Thanks for sharing that.

Perhaps a spend limit should be introduced instead...

 

An F1 V10, decimating eardrums on a street track in NJ with Manhattan views . . . someone pinch me!

 

All that "relevance" bull **** is just that...always has been.

 

The way I remember it is...

Way back when Mad Max was in charge of the FIA (so we're talking 2009 and before), he wanted to introduce new technologies (energy recovery systems, etc.). His engine proposal was a four cylinder turbo format. The engineers and designers morphed that into a V6 turbo (IIRC, Adrian Newey was very instrumental in that format change...suggesting that the V6 could be a stressed member, whereas the I4 would require a (bulky) framework around it.)...

I remember Renault saying they'd stick around if those changes were made. The changes got Mercedes attention and brought them back to the sport. Honda has made their return. VW/Audi Group hired Domenicali to do a cost/benefit study. As others have pointed out repeatedly: there is not a shortage of folks wanting to be part of the circus.

To suggest that in the few years they've been back in the sport, Mercedes had this grand scheme of winning by changing the rule book is silly. To suggest that the current configuration has no relevance to modern road cars is even sillier. VW announced last year that it will no longer design naturally aspirated engines and that when the current engine families are phased out, they will be replaced by turbo or supercharged versions. Look at the latest McLaren, Porsche, and Ferarri supercars...turbos, energy recovery, etc.

I've worked in the auto industry for the past ten years. It is VERY clear that the number of people under 20 who are car enthusiasts is nowhere close to what it was in past decades. Yes, there are some very enthusiastic kids...but the percentage is WAY down. Combine that with the realities of modern cars (i.e., one cannot simply order a big carb and some headers and have some fun over the weekend). Hot rodding modern cars is still done with wrenches...but the multimeter, the soldering iron, a USB slot, etc. are also being used. (e.g., I added 20% more HP to my Saab with nothing but a soldering iron, some software, and the proper USB cable - I'm not suggesting it's EASY, but the tools and techniques have changed dramatically).

F1 has a choice to make: fade into glory with a bunch of grey haired geezers yelling "WHAT?" to each other...or, have some relevance and attract the soldering iron crowd. My age puts me in the former group...my vocation puts me in the latter.

 

Open it up to 5.0 Liter Natural and 2.5 Liter Forced Induction

Manufacturers only (must build the chassis and the engine)

4 car teams

Pick your poison and let them go at it.

 

One of the McLaren drivers told me this story and told me that the engineer who discovered this was the biggest nerd for "technology facts" in the McL garage, but he consistently found 'bugs' with the cars, and was handsomely rewarded by Ron Dennis for his ability to cure nagging problems.

If you really want to get a cool look at technology and the sheer "awesomeness" of the technology of speed, consider this . . . In the new attempt at the Land Speed Record, the "Bloodhound SSC" is going to need a big-ass fuel pump. Not some souped up version of your Ferrari fuel pump, which churns our about 1 HP. No this is something more . . . .

Last I heard, the engine designers for the 1,000 MPH attempt were considering using an Aston Martin V-12 or a Jaguar Supercharged engine as the fuel pump. Can you imagine that, an engine of over 500 HP which will be used to pump the fuel?

I think they are trying to push 10 gallons per second down the pipe.

Cool stuff.

 

Speaking of cool F1 stuff... and fuel pumps The Saturn V booster rocket on the Apollo missions used 5 Rocketdyne F-1 engines, which are still the largest liquid fuel single-nozzle rocket engines ever built. The fuel pumps required a turbine engine of 55,000 hp, and the fuel pump flowed 15,471 gallons per minute and the liquid oxygen pump flowed 24,811 gallons per minute, or a total of 671 gallons per second! Rocketdyne F-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Regarding the Formula 1 F1 engines... BMWairhead seems to have been the only one actually paying attention in the last few years! ALL the engine manufacturers wanted a new engine formula, and voted for the new formula - including Renault, who would only continue in F1 with a new turbo formula. It was certainly no Mercedes conspiracy. Originally planned for a 1.6 litre inline 4, it was changed to the V6 at the request of the teams and engine builders.

They actually got one thing very right - they imposed a fuel flow rate limit. While they also imposed very strict constraints on the V6 design layout, the way to do an "unlimited design" engine formula would be to impose the fuel flow rate limit and the maximum amount of fuel for the race, just as the 2014 rules did. In energy terms, that means that X number of joules per minute are available to the engine for instantaneous power, and a total energy volume of Y joules is available to complete the race.

The engine design that is most energy efficient would get the most power from that max flow rate; no inherent inequalities of 5.0 NA or 2.5 turbo would apply, the engineers could build any type of FI, any # of cylinders, etc, they want - whoever gets the most efficient engine will have the most IC power from fuel flow.

The total amount of energy available (ie fuel capacity limit) contributes to ERS usage and strategy - teams can use fuel flow during non-peak power demands (braking, part throttle) to charge batteries, just as they do now, and then can re-use energy on demand just as they do now. Heat recovery, kinetic recovery, could all be wide open - the constraint would only be that they have 100 litres of gasoline to convert to energy of any form to complete the race, with a restriction of maximum fuel flow rate. THAT would be a fair yet exciting engineering challenge (and extremely expensive for the development race).

 

what he said. right on the money.

 

That's the whole point though.

Formula e has a really interesting break up though. Theres one chassis manufac from what I understand that all teams have to use.
Personally I think it's ****ed. Trying to remain relevant while being safe. It's a lose lose entertainment wise. You can only go so far.

 

I think this is Ecclestone at his most controversial and knowing perfectly well that rules cannot be overturned at short notice that easily.

I still hope the next set of rules will bring us back to more design freedom.

 

I was hoping someone would bring that up one day as the true definition of a constructor.
Nowadays, having the intellectual property on the chassis is all that's required.

The true manufacturers are/were Ferrari, Mercedes, Honda (when it had a team), Toyota, BRM, Eagle perhaps, etc ...

 

I disagree. Take this year and mix in a little parity and I think we'll see some really good racing.

The lack of noise I can understand, but as a sufferer of pretty severe tinnitus I see the positive side of that one, too...

Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, there are (fortunately) a few level heads thinking about a progressive solution. Twin turbos have been suggested as a noise maker. It's the end of the first year of the formula. If you were running a business, would you panic and regress to the old, comfortable status quo? Or would you look at the positives and put some effort into improving the few negatives?

As far as formula E...my understanding is that as the series progresses, the number of chassis builders will increase. Again, their somewhat cautious approach makes a lot of $en$e.

 

Oh we can only hope. I remember at the Canadian GP in the 90s when Ferrari was the only team still running V12s, the rest switched over to V10s. You could tell when The Ferrari's went buy with your back to the track. Watching F1 practice and Qual at Indy 2001. At the end of the front straight in the grandstands. The music of the cars coming out of last turn and screaming down the straight. At the time the longest time of any track the F1 cars were at full throttle. Awesome sound ,So what if you needed earplugs.My son and I were there, he was still in college. I guess i'm just old.


Ago

 

Curious that BE mentions VW not coming into F1 in this article. R8 and Lamborghini run some nice V10s...is BE trying to woo VW. Both Audi and Lambo are owned by VW. Hmmmmm

BTW if BE pulls this V10 in F1 off, I will not badmouth him any more...well at least until he does something stupid.

 

Simply not correct. There was agreement on the new engine. The agreement was for an 4 cylinder twin turbo direct injected engine with NO, repeat NO, extension or expansion to the KERS. That's what Ferrari agreed to and was confirmed publicly in 2010 by the CEO.

This didn't suit Mercedes. As one of their directors made clear earlier this year, their position was to get the exact engine format they wanted or leave.

Mercedes worked and planned from the outset for the current format and therefore had a long head start on everyone else. They played to their strength with the heavy emphasis on hybrid power and reducing the ICE component. Blind Freddie could see they were granted a massive advantage and, coupled with a guarantee that no team would be allowed to catch up ensured the dominance we saw.

It makes eminent sense that, just as the agreement for the 4 cylinder twin turbo, direct injected engine was changed, so to should the current system - ASAP. If it means we have to endure another year of no team competition, then that's a bitter pill that F1 will have to swallow. Going to a V10 or V8 NA engine is a good reaction and would certainly reverse the mass desertion of the F1 fan. If a team or manufacturer wants to leave then "see ya later and don't let the door hit you on the way out"

 

So 458 replacement need to have V10 NA, that's the rules

 

Nice one didn't know zat...

 

I would love to see F1 with turbo 4 cylinder engines with a 20k rpm cap and let the games begin.

 

I have been an F1 fan for so long that I remember when the engine regs were quite simple. X-liters of displacement N/A or Y-liters boosted. That the FIA ever started with these hyper regulated specs is at the root of the problem now facing F1. Isn't 1.6 liters turbo charged restrictive enough? Why not allow V-6 and I-4, or whatever cylinder configuration you like?
(the 1960s saw 1.5 liter V-8s dominate)

VW may have come in with I-4, BMW night have come in with I-6...who cares. The design that was best executed would prevail, not the design of some FIA committee who would never have to make what the specified.

 

I'm not liking the math on it just yet...

We know Ferrari and Red Bull will be in.

Just thinking out loud here, but if they keep the ERS ''as it is'' and all that needs changing is the actual engine unit itself (lets for now say 2.5 V10 with a 20000RPM limit, 5 units per season), could Lotus and williams be persuaded? Perhaps Bernie can ''persuade'' them by paying for their engines for a season. I'm sure a return of V10s will spike significant interest in F1 again so he might actually make a buck on it.