I have simply stopped watching F1... and started watching MotoGP instead. That's racing!
Ferrari was among the group that decided the new rules; they didn't insist on V12. Actually, Ferrari sells more V8 than V12.
A couple of years ago the automakers (talking Europe now) had statistics that read like: If Mercedes brings out an S-class with V12 they will resultingly gain C-class sales by 30%. This is a figure I seem to remember. That additional sale is through added glorious image to the company. Times change. If I remember correctly, BMW is no longer offering a V12, flagship being a hybrid V8? That is where times go. Why should F1 be spearheading yesterday and not tomorrow? Will we see F1-tech in road-cars? Not directly, that is fluffy marketing talk. But is there a relevance in technology? yes. Is Mercedes utterly trashing everyone with new hybrid technology? yes. That should sell. I would tend to agree that one of the appealing things with motor racing is 4 wheels a beast of an engine and a drive to keep the thing on the road. In that sense (what many repeat here) aerodynamics and electronics are already tricky to fit in. If F1 should be the pinnacle of motor racing also in a technology perspective, than there is no choice in moving forward. Big change is happening in the automotive industry and that is reflecting in what we wittness in F1. I'd say forget about V8's and V12's. Just hope they find some dB for next season : )
I seem to remember that Ferrari was dead against a 4 cylinder. Why, I don't know. Ferrari won 2 world titles with 4-cylinder engines! As for Ecclestone, he is not an engine manufacturer, is he? It's good to remember that 4 cylinder, 6 cylinder (in line and V6), 8 cylinder (in line and V8), 10 and 12 cylinder engine have been used successfully in F1. I find the imposition of an engine design unnecessary, when other parameters such a capacity, fuel flow, etc... are already imposed.
Unfortunately, V12s are out of consideration. Even if there was just ONE restriction in F1, it'd be fuel volume. So a V12 wouldn't get to the checkered flag. Indeed. MotoGP is a hundred times better than F1, bumping each other at 200+ MPH, leaning at 63°+ in the curves, dragging elbows and knees (at least Marc Marquez), putting a real spectacle. And those guys go thru infinitely more risk than any F1 driver, especially when it rains. Will attend my first MotoGP this coming April at COTA. Exactly. It'd be great to see a mixture of 4, 6, and 8-cylinder engines, both with force induction and naturally aspirated. But the chances of that happening are next to none, unfortunately.
Do you guys fully understand what you are talking about? The reason for heavily reglemented engine design, including cylinder angle is the inherent complexity of a combustion engine. No one knows what's the best until you have pursued a couple of avenues. In the days of free design that lead to heavy spending as many varieties were built to test the design predictions. Good luck keeping costs under control then. You'd see a scenario where you can simply buy success by forking out more moneys.
I keep hoping that more engine freedom may come back one day. Each choice has its advantages and its disadvantages, which engieenrs need to work out. A 4-cyl may not rev as high as a 8-cyl, but is easier to package in a chassis. Also less parts, less exhaust pipes, etc... Ideal for turbos which run at lower revs than atmo engines. A V8 is more torquey than a V12, but cannot rev so high. A V12 has lighter parts and almost no need for a flywheel, so is more responsive, but the longer crankshaft and camshafts (compared to a V8) bring tortional problems. etc... etc... But other configurations could be considered: Flat-6, 8 or 12, Boxer, etc...
There is no such thing as "What's best". Each type of engine has its particularities, which can be exploited or problems which can be solved. That ground has more or less been covered already, and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. The ideal capacity PER CYLINDER is roughly 500cc for turbo, and 350/400CC for atmo. Something to do with piston area, number of valves, and the induction rate. Then you have to consider the tortional frequencies in each configuration, bearing in mind that the shorter crankshaft and the shorter camshafts are at an advantage there. The shorter block tends to be the strongest as well, and the easiest to fit in a chassis, you can even imagine it transversal. If turbo up to 2L are allowed, go for a 4-cyl in line, possibly cranked or laying flat. It only atmo more than 2L are allowed, a V8 may be best, if it's more than 3L atmo, them probably V10. Finally, multi-cylinder like V10 and V12 are often not self-supporting unless the block is really beefed up, and they are a plumber's nightmare with complex exhaust systems. V12 at 60 degree angle have the highest centre of gravity. As for keeping cost under control, that notion has been abandonned apparently.
Except for the fact that engine builders must be willing to sell customer engines, so if someone spends all the money in the world on R&D, anyone that wants can buy it. Mark
We can even imagine the FIA imposing a price ceiling. I wish Cosworth could come back and make engines available to everyone at an affordable price, without the dictat of Mercedes, Renault or Honda (perhaps). Car manufacturers have their own agenda.
F1 has been dead for years. The solution is I bought a tape of the 1976 season and watch it over and over and over again. (I'm not going to tell you who wins).
Very true. Any answer very much depends on the target use. A dragster has very different requirements to a WEC car of course. However, I'd be willing to bet that for use in F1, and partly depending on any longevity rules, there is very definitely just one 'best' solution. Should they throw the rule book out, and just limit fuel flow (a much better solution than tank size IMO), they'll all eventually converge on just one 'best'. (A different solution may be found with a tank size limit, but I'm still sure there would be just one 'ultimate' best regardless.) Trouble is, they'd spend gazillions of dollars to reach any such conclusions. Florian, any comments? Would love to hear your feelings..... I may be way off base here..... They all agreed, rightly or wrongly is another debate, that the current formula is what they wanted for the next 5 years or so. Is it 'the best'? Apart from the sound, I find what they're doing today to be stunning technology. And it's what they wanted....... Open it up, as the 'dreamers' here would like and costs really would go through the roof. Damn, not the roof, but the ionosphere too!..... Cheers, Ian
As much as I dislike the fake green aspect and the silly costs involved the new formula has produced some creative designs. Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault each focused on different priorities. MB got it right but still has powerplant issues. Exciting stuff. It's locking them into their mistakes that's the problem now.
Agreed. However, for now at least (the next homologation period, starting in February) they're all allowed to make some pretty substantial changes. Some of them want to have another homologation date mid-season, and we'll see on that one I guess. Over the coming years they get more 'locked down', but hopefully the others will have at least caught up by then. The field remains level.... Cheers, Ian
I've you've read the Motorsport analysis (highly recommended) you know that there's some basic architecture that needs remediation. Don't know if that's allowed or not.
In the December issue? For some reason, it didn't automagically queue it into the 'newsstand', but poking at it told me it was indeed available. Downloading now..... I'll give it a read & report back, but I'd be surprised if there's any reason they can't do what they want right now - This will tighten more & more over the next few years, but I don't think any of them are up the creek at this stage. Cheers, Ian
You're in for some good reading. Particularly about what led up to Bianchi's accident. For one thing Ferrari packaged its engine to yield room for aero advantage at the rear. At this point can they make changes to the basics?
