Hey Pete I didn't know if you saw this article on Grand Prix.com. Since it was on-topic to our discussion, I thought I would pass it along: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns13253.html Of course, all are welcome to comment.
Now I will add my humble opinion I don't understand what the writer is saying here. Why is the development cost more expensive because it is a v8 and we know lots about v8s. Surely it would be the other way around? The thing that I think this writer is missing is the development cost is in optimising the combustion chamber NOT simply making a crank and casting a block and heads. Thus making a v10 versus a v12 or v8 is not going to cost that much more or any difference. The real deal and the reason the manufacturers are not keen on changing is they have spent millions on computer research, modelling and making single cylinder engines to find the ultimate bore and stroke ratio and combustion chamber, porting and valve size, etc. That is the BIG cost area of designing an engine. The FIA (bless their soul ) realise this and that is why they do NOT want to change the bore and stroke. But ofcourse once the teams start doing the research on the 2.4 ltr engine size they will find that a different bore and stroke or something else is better because it has 2 fewer cylinders ... Agree with this, but nothing has changed. We have reached a plato with the v10 of 3 ltrs and I would assume that all the top engines are pretty close to each other. Again what is the writer trying to say ... or is he just anti the v8 concept because it does not give him a hard on Yep and that is called progress ... der. Surely the writer does not want the F1 engine designers to go on prolonged holidays and for engine development to stop??? The FIA in their anti-technology and attempts to kill F1 though have thought of this and this is why they want to restrict the bore size to a maximum ... or possibly even set the bore/stroke ratio. This will naturally put a ceiling on hp and stop progress. Thus I am very, very against this direction ... might as well enforce side valve motors. Saying that the engineers will move their focus to other areas and we might gain from a reduction in friction losses and oil pumping losses which I know they all work hard on, but if they cannot play with the combustion chamber they will put a blow torch on other areas. Yep and again that is called progress. Then in 10 years time we will need to reduce the engine size again to say 2 ltrs. Personally all the arguments about F1 looking silly because they have smaller engines than other single seater series is off track. Yes the engines may be smaller but they will not be producing less power or be slower around the race track. That is what makes F1 ... their speed and efficiency, not their engine size! Pete's thoughts
The article is a bit murkey on this point. Here is the way I read it. I think the writer is concerned that since there has already been so much development on the V8 configuration, any additional gains in HP are going to be very expensive to find. However, I think the writer misses a big point in that all the development work on previous V8's were much larger packages. I don't think everyone will be nearly as far along as he envisions. I think he is just doing a better job here explaining what he said earlier. Although, I also feel he is not convinced the V8 is the answer. We agree here also. My personal preference is to issue a maximum engine displacement (ie 2.4 liter), normally aspirated, then get the hell out of the way. This is my biggest problem with the supposed cost-cutting nonsense. The constructors that can afford the R&D will spend whatever it takes to get an advantage. If $20M will buy 10 HP, they will spend $30M to get 15HP. that is how it has always worked. The Jordans and Minardis will never compete at the front. Nor will any of these newteams Max keeps harping on. They will never have the resources to beat Mercedes/McLaren, BMW/Williams, Ferrari, or even Renault and BAR. And you can throw Toyota in the mix pretty quickly because they will improve due to pure dollar power. This new formula will cost more. It has to. ANY new formula will cost more unless all the engines are the same. Not just the same size, but the same engine. If there was one engine supplier in F1, the cost would go down. Any thing that the FIA says about cutting cost with the new engine formula is pure falderol. If they do it right, you are absolutely correct. The only way to not have to move to even smaller engines will be if the FIA artificially strangles the engines with some kind of restriction. Can't disagree with this position. Only my emotional attraction to bigger engines keeps me up at nights I thought you might enjoy the article
Yes very, very good point. If we look back at when the Ford Cosworth engine came out and almost became the sole engine for F1 it was miles ahead of the opposition in the packaging department and really did help chassis development become the focus. The only way we could get teams to play this came is if we once again push manufacturers out of the series and thus leave it open for a company like Cosworth to once again pull their fingers out of the never regions and build a decent engine. I love the manufacturer involvement but it does mean all teams want to have their engine partners otherwise they will NOT suceed. I guess I have always been a rev nut not a big engine lover. Infact the BRM 1.5ltr v16 has been known to cause me a few restless nights ... Thanks for posting it. Pete
