Max Verstappen

Not really!

DFV was made at a time where one could use a different engine every practice session, a new one for qualifying, and a new one for race (each of which could have different specifications.)

The current era requires 6 race weekends per motor--or 6×4 = 24 DFV motors. So if the modern power plant cost more than 24×DFVs (in the same currency at the same date) then DFV was cheaper, otherwise not.

The technology, machining, metallurgy required to get 24 DFV lifetimes out of a single motor are what is driving most of the costs.
{For example: a modern F1 motor can change the valve guides between races without disassembling the heads from the block!}

And jut like it took from 1950 to 1995 to get jet engine blades to last 100,000 hours, it may take similarly long time to figure out how to make MGU-H last a whole season.

 

I disagree with your math Mitch. IIRC up through the late 1970s when the DFV was prevalent, typical allocation was 3 engines/car /season in rotation: one race engine; one for practice/qualy: one back at the engine builder for overhaul. Granted the wealthier teams could afford more. However I recall that when Renault burst on the scene in 1977 with the Turbo they arrived in the paddock with 5 engines for their lone entry. Other teams were stunned by that level of committment($) but given the rate the early units grenaded they were needed.

 

The 70s saw some top teams turning up at GP with 5 cars for 2 drivers. Two cars each, plus a spare one, and a provision of engines.
And there was an large rotation of DFVs, so much that Cosworth was unable to recondition enough engines between races.
In the end, Cosworth started to chose which team or which driver it would work for, and the price of engine servicing went up.
Several independent workshops filled that gap in the market, like Nicholson, Hart, Judd.
Some teams even decided to service their own engine.

 

Ok, lets get some facts in here.
Cosworth spend £100K (770K todays money) to develop the engine.

A brand new engine was £10K (77K today).
An engine rebuild was £800 (6.2K).

Lets go with a rich team. 24 DFV's over a race season per car. £1.85m per car per season for entire engine supply, in todays money.

Development for the Hybrid engine alone is over £1 Billion.

Unit cost per engine is between £2.5-3.5 Million. That's £7.5-10.5 million per car per season (if perfect reliability).

In other words, they could've designed the DFV and raced with it with an entire engine supply of engines....for the cost of the cheapest power unit today....without development.

In 2013 the V8 engine had a total unit cost of £107K. 8 engines per car per season = £856K. Round that up to a nice round million for an extra race or 2 added.

 

As per my calculation above, single unit engine costs are outrageous in itself. Let alone the fact that they're far too complicated to develop as is clearly evident looking at the last 7 years. If F1 boffins can't figure it out in that time (some of the cleverest people on the planet), it's probably too complicated to be taken seriously.

 

2 car team
20 races per season
10 brand new DFVs = 770K
200 engine rebuilds = 1,600K
for a total of 2,370K
{in todays money}

Note: At the time (mid 1970s) the turn around time for a rebuild at Cosworth was over 2 weeks and under 3 weeks so if you had races 2 weeks apart, you might need a few more engines in circulation. Certainly when you go to F1 events where they run the old cars {1970-1990s} a given team arrives with a trailer load of freshly rebuild DFVs and switch them every practice session--I have seen a new DFV installed, fired up, and then removed without turning as single lap as another rebuilt one installed. {Takes about 25 minutes for a good team}.

Questionable; since Honda has been rumored to have spent around 1B (in what currency) over 5 years!
But, in your defense, it took Honda at least 4 of those years to achieve a decently powerful motor with acceptable reliability.

I don't know where you got that data, but it seems within reason.

There are all sorts of parts than can be changed around without penalty. {Plugs, spark-plug wires, valve guides,...} And others that can be rotated around {MGU-*, turbo-charger,...} in order to avoid penalties as long as the basic ICE is functional. so the word "perfect" is not applicable.

What I think you meant was "without engine-meltdown requiring a 4th or 5th engine to be brought into service".

I am not trying to say that these stupid hybrids are inexpensive, I am trying to compare top team costs of yesterday to top team costs of today. Yes, they are bigger today but closer to 3× than 10× (in today's money).

-----------------------

Now if you add William's assertion that back them the bigger teams would arrive with up to 5 cars (replacements for crashes and a spare car)--those cars would have engines already mounted and often warmed up and tested--which increases, again, the number of engines in circulation.

 

I tried looking up the cost for (major) individual parts (that are limited per season) but couldn't get a clear answer. The biggest cost by far is the MGUH because of it's complexity. Take that away and these engines could be run at a (very) economical cost, probably not far off the cost of the V8's.

If the current engine is simplified (remove MGU-H, conventional turbos, conventional KERS) I (and I'm sure many others) would be quite happy for the time being. The difference between power units would be much less, cost would drop significantly, racing would improve...

The development costs are taken from public financial reports

 

Do you know that the DFV was decided in a deal between Lotus, Ford and Cosworth?
Walter Hayes of Ford gave £100k to the project, but what about the 2 other parties. How much did they participate?
So we don't know exactly how much this engine did cost to research and design, then to test and put into production.
After one year of existence, Ford and Cosworth thought a way to get their investment back, as there was a shortage of engines in F1.
They managed to convince Chapman to relinquish the exclusivity he enjoyed, for DFVs to be supplied to other teams.
The first team to buy a DFV was Matra (for Ken Tyrrell), and they paid $7500 in 1967 (apparently that would be $90K in 2005?).

A top team would have access to 10 or 12 DFV for a season, some new, some not; a small team only 6 perhaps.
Engines didn't get thrown away, unless big failures like a rod through the block (rare on a DFV).
The DFV were serviced, and the internals changed or worked on,but most blocks and cylinder heads would be kept, up to 3 years for some.
The service costs varied depending on the work to be done, but I take your word that it could have started at £800.
Independent engine builders were less expensive, and even started to manufacture cheaper parts than Cosworth for whom it was a lucrative business.
That's how some learnt their trade; John Judd became an adept at reverse engineering and even did "fake" DFV blocks it was said.
Nicholson serviced McLaren engines, Brian Hart was another one. Old DFVs were recycled in endurance racing, with softer cams.
So a small team would not have to buy brand new engines every year, only the top ones maybe would.
Even development didn't create the need to change blocks or heads, as they mostly affected crankshafts, pistons and valve train.

I don't know what point you are trying to make by saying that todays hybrid engines are more expensives than atmo ones.
That should be evident: they are built to last longer! It's not really an engineering feat to make engines that last 100 miles and then go pop.
That's what the NHRA does; they rebuild engines between heats that are only 1/4 mile long !!!
But making engines that can do 1/3 of a 23-race season is an achievement in my book. Think about the hours, and the mileage each of these units does.
Beside, they are much more efficient, powerful and reliable than the old atmos.
I know you don't like them, but that's another story ...

 

This is the point I was trying to get to.
And look over in street cars, it took Ferrari 18 years to go from a 3-litre V8 (308) to near 1970s F1 3 litre power levels and meet street emissions (F355 1995)

The life of a top fuel engine is around 4000 revolutions ! most of those being warmed up.

 

You're the one that brought it up. I replied to Mitch's questions regarding the DFV.

I don't think it's that much of an achievement to have engines that spin at the same RPM as those build in 1967 last as long as they do now.

 

In 1967, atmospheric engines could only deliver more power if the revs were increased, because more revs meant more fuel mixture going through the engine.
It's not the same in a supercharged engine, because depending of the boost, a high amount of mixture can be fed from lower revs.
That's why the rules in different series limited the amount of boost allowed, but in general between 2.5 and 4 bars.
On an atmo engine, power can only be increased through higher revs.
On a turbo, you can play with boosts and revs, therefore increasing revs is not essential, but obtaining a bigger bang is.
There are risks in increasing revs like higher wear rate, increased vibrations.
The problem with turbo being the lag, and how to dissipate the heat and keep the balance between boost and revs.

Thus a 3-liter V12 engine screaming at 18,000 rpm may sound very powerful, but in fact it wastes an awful lot of energy through noise, whilst a 1.5L V6 turbo running at 12,000 rpm only with 3 bar of boost delivers more power . That was Renault's gamble when they arrived in F1, and their idea prevailed.

 

The problem with the limitation of the number of engines per season is that it was supposed to lower the costs, but actually it raised them. Maybe not for the customer teams, as there is a cost cap for them, but for manufacturers.

 

That was the aim, but it wasn't achieved, I agree.
But the reliability target as been reached up to a point, and personally I find that remarkable.

Now, if only the tyres could be made so long lasting ...

 

Well, remarkable for the teams but maybe not for F1. The teams and Pirelli build what they're asked to build, but we should question if this is what we want F1 to be.

Personally I don't think so.

 

The same as when having great sex.
It's better with the soundtrack

 

....what's your point? Literally has nothing to do with what I said.

 

Indeed.

And I don't watch F1 for the amount of energy that's saved. Where's the entertainment in that?

 

I was just explaining to you that noise and high revs are just a fetiche thing, and not proof of better engineering.

But the explanation went right over your head, just like everytime you are confronted by facts.

 

Much of that noise is responsible for overfilling of the cylinders with air! making the engine more efficient and powerful (than it could be without stacks and headers.)
The headers and intake velocity stacks both contribute to BMEP (stacks contribute about 4× as much as the headers, BTW.)

 

Your opinion doesn't make it fact.

I didn't say anything about high revs. If you actually read my post, I say there is nothing amazing at having much more reliability with the ICE these days when the RPM's are the same.

In fact, actual piston speed is a bit lower now. Lower piston speed = less wear.

 

Well i'm only 5'5 so...

 

YOU calling ANYONE out as being dense has to be some cosmic joke.

 

ICE = cheap as chips

 

Looks like Max is really enjoying his Brazilian vacations... At ~0:40 he is cheering that his trainer finally kissed Kelly's friend after days of flirting.

 

Eh..... Looks a lot like my typical day.... Well, except for the partying, lack of masks and horde of hot girls (I only have 1 of those at home!)

Kevin