2014 Engine rule towards homologation
- This topic has 35 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Latest news is that the circuit operators are not happy with the new regulations either, they are emphasising the engine noise issue knowing that a lot of the under 30 yrs. crowd feel strongly about this. The real issue is mentioned at the bottom of the page, namely they can get Indycar to come to Australia for $3.5 million so why should they pay ten times that amount for F1 if F1 turns into a one-design series like Indycar and the fans lose interest. After all when they run GP2 do you see a sea of fans in Arden ( I think that’s a GP2 team) colours waving giant flags, painting their faces and idolising the lead driver, no of course you don’t because when all the cars are the same the only interest,other than crashes, is in who is the best driver, you know ” whatsisname” the kid with the long hair from somewhere in eastern Europe.
PM you did not pay attention to the rest of what I wrote ” It has been known for some time ” is hearsay not evidence and my point is not that the engines will be a disaster, or that they wont sound good but that they will be a backward step.
I did pay attention to your argument. And it’s quite clear that all you are trying to do is bury my argument in semantics for the sake of strengthening your own when, rather ironically, you have no evidence of the claims you made in your opening post.
Latest news is that the circuit operators are not happy with the new regulations either, they are emphasising the engine noise issue knowing that a lot of the under 30 yrs. crowd feel strongly about this.
They’re not going to defect. Bernie will not let them. As soon as the first batch of new engines are produced, everyone will see that they sound similar to the current engines, and the circuits will stop caring.
Which claims in my opening post, that the FIA is setting the design parameters and fixing the power output so no team can gain an advantage? it’s in their original release. That when Max Mosley was FIA boss they wanted all the teams to adopt a single engine designed by Cosworth? do the research if your memory is that short.
Did you stop reading after the first sentence or did you chose to strengthen your own argument by disregarding the rest of the post, starting ” The real issue…….
No, your claim that the 2014 engine rules will be a disaster. That’s the claim you have no proof of.
The 2014 engine rules are only a step on the way to the disaster that is creeping up on us, which is going to be the standard engine. At the risk of repeating myself even the current engines that started as a development rule engine and so have slight differences need artificial assistance in order to make a pass on the straights, the new engines will be even more evenly matched and will not only need DRS but a magic button to pass, what’s next, dice being rolled for a drive-through? Sorry I forgot, it’s not dice it’s the safety car.
The 2014 engine rules are only a step on the way to the disaster that is creeping up on us, which is going to be the standard engine.
You have no proof that a standard engine is being planned. If anything, the original 2013 regulations were closer to a standard engine, since Max Mosley was talking up the idea of a “world engine” to be used by all teams in all forms of World Championship motorsport – Formula 1, WRC, WTCC, etc.
have slight differences need artificial assistance in order to make a pass on the straights
It’s fairly clear you have absolutely no understanding of the sport, then. The DRS was not added because the engines are too similar to one another to be able to pass, but because the use of aerodynamics in the cars was making it impossible for themt to get closer to one another. A car with good aerodynamics and a bad engine will always do better than a car with bad aerodynamics and a good engine.
The magic is to issue a specification that provides the freedom to innovate. Overly restrictive (spec) cars and engines may be ok for subordinate racing programs where you want to be able to distinguish and recruit top driving talent, but not in F1. In my opinion, regulating the engine config, number of cylinders, displacement, rpm, and boost approaches this as you have just placed a cap on performance. Regulations need to allow enough headroom that performance, efficiency and reliability trade offs must be managed by each team and engine design group. This encourages (necessitates) continued refinements on many levels to run at the front and in my opinion is the heart and soul of F1. I don’t really care if they are racing 4 banger turbo engines or naturally aspirated v12’s as long as I know that the guys in front had to break new ground to achieve a level of performance that everyone else is chasing.
No Prisoner Monkey, I understand the sport better than you do, there is nothing in the aerodynamic aspect of the current cars that stops cars from following or overtaking on the straights, the aerodynamics only prevent the following car from following closely in corners where their aerodynamic downforce is compromised by the turbulent air created by the car in front, the two methods introduced by the FIA in an attempt to overcome this problem,KERS and DRS both try to emulate a more powerful engine, Kers by increasing torque and therefore acceleration out of the corner and DRS by increasing the power to drag ratio. Kers of course was self defeating because both cars had it, DRS is restricted to provide limited opportunity and is an artificial overtaking gimmick.
Thanks for your contribution McEngine, my point of view exactly. Isn’t this exactly why we have a manufacturers title and fans follow teams regardless of who is driving for them?
I agree with HoHum here, one of the most distinguishing characteristics of Formula One historically and traditionally is the ability of not only drivers racing, but also constructors racing, engine manufacturers racing, tyres suppliers racing, aerodynamicists racing, strategists racing each other, etc, etc, etc.
I don’t know if this is the reason for Formula One being the pinnacle of motorsport or for the huge difference in audience between F1 and other motorsport series, but having this DNA it sure helped. The ability of Colin Chapman’s skirts, Frank Williams driver aids, Adrian Newey aero-genius and Ross Brawn’s Double Diffusor, amongst others, the ability of these inovations in winning championships is unique in the world of sport and it would be very very dumb if we were to revert F1 to being a kind of over-priced GP2.
I don’t know about the engine issue in discussion here, as I’m no expert nor I follow it too close, but in principle I’m always in favour of giving the teams more room to innovate. On the other hand, some of the best innovations in F1 history derived precisely from the regulations being restrictive. So I’ll side with those who say we should keep the noise of the engines.
Thank you all who have not responded negatively to my post. It seems that we have a victory, the latest press release from the FIA drops any reference to a fixed maximum horsepower and a level playing field, the limiting factor now will only be the fuel flow rate and 15,000 rpm. limit, and they appear to be promoting a technical race between the suppliers.
I would still have preferred to have some format variety, but I am delighted that once more the best engineers will be able to make the best engines and we will have more variation in performance than we have had for the last few years.
they appear to be promoting a technical race between the suppliers.
this is what Formula One is about! Although it can lead to episodes like US 2005 (it was about tyres that time).
To all those that said after (during!) the Indianapolis 2005 that it was the end of F1, the sport was in disrepute (why does it seems sometimes that different people tend to use the same words and expressions when regarding to F1 discussion? why do we hear always “disrepute”, and not discredit or reproach, etc?; I counted 26 synonyms for the word, here: http://thesaurus.com/browse/disrepute ), it’s a dark day in history, etc.. to all those people, I say it was in fact a beatiful day for F1, one more in the history of drama this 50 years soap opera has used us to. And it brought tones of first pages in newspapers and mediums that usually reserve a small column, if that, to the sport.. like the other one says “every publicity is good publicity”
HoHum – So they went ahead and restricted maximum fuel flow. Interesting. Im curious if any of the engine developers will go large and look at some form of stratified charge, multi shot, or even lean burn technology. Is anyone here familiar with these types of combustion technology and wether or not they might have application in high level performance engines?
McEngine if the press-release is correct then they are sure to be trying all ways to get more power from every cc of fuel burnt, win-win situation.
Looking back, I am finding articles that claim 1hp per cc in qualifying trim, and 1.5 cc per hp in race trim for v6 1.5L 12000 rpm engines – thjs translates to 1000 hp from 1.5L V6 …in 1987 !
2014 will be very interesting as turbocharger technology alone is light years better today than it was in ’87 – with variable geometry exhaust and machined from solids compressor wheels etc.
The recent ban on hot blown diffusers – my guess is that you can get some of this performance back with VG turbos – without messing with ignition and fuel maps.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.