Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
The V10's were the best sound of F1 imo. V12 just about there too.
The V8 exhaust blown diffuser was aurally interesting.
I doubt many people could really tell the difference between a V12 and V10 F1 engine. Both had a high pitch and both were painfully loud when heard trackside. And many probably wouldn't know the Ford V8 in Michael's Benetton from the Renault V10 in Hill's Williams. Or between the Honda V12 in Senna's MP4/7A and the Renault V10 in Mansell's FW14B.
All great engines and all equally iconic because, between them, they all defined the sound of a period in F1 that many, now middle-aged, fans first tasted the sport.
That thing I mentioned elsewhere that what you see is only about 10% attributable to input from the eye, the rest the brain fills in, made me read "fat middle-aged, fans first tasted ..."
A question that depends on peoples perspective, and possibly expectations, but what is the difference (in sound) between a V10 at 8k and a V6 at 11 k?
There could be different firing orders on either, and slightly more 'bangs'.
My personal preference for sound is the longer pipes always sound better.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
A question that depends on peoples perspective, and possibly expectations, but what is the difference (in sound) between a V10 at 8k and a V6 at 11 k?
There could be different firing orders on either, and slightly more 'bangs'.
My personal preference for sound is the longer pipes always sound better.
This is the perfect case for bringing back the V10 engines. Sustainable fuels. Can't get greener than that! You might see green exhaust coming out of the things.
V10s would require at least twice the amount of fuel, thus requiring a return to refueling. Yay!!! We get to watch the fastest racecars sitting stationary for 10s twice a race. How exciting!!! And the occasional fireworks show.
Fair trade to get the 1.5k Hz exhaust note back. Everyone stops for roughly the same period of time, so I'm not sure what the issue is spectacle wise. If pit stops are bad for spectacle then hard compound long life tires should be instituted and pit stops done away with entirely.
Yes, pit stops should be done away with, all passes should be made ON TRACK, if only the cars and tires were more suitable for such a spectacle.
Watching the fastest racecars sitting stationary twice a race for 8 to 10 seconds is absurd. Also, refueling gives way to ways to fix the race a la Singapore 2008. Tires and fuel should be able to last 305km. Tires changes for weather should remain, but they should return to 2005 style long life tires.
Race long life tires would also lower the amount of marbles off line and would also help improve side by side racing.
No, it is not worth it to get more noise back, loud engine noise is just wasted energy.
Last edited by ENGINE TUNER on 15 Aug 2022, 17:08, edited 1 time in total.
This is the perfect case for bringing back the V10 engines. Sustainable fuels. Can't get greener than that! You might see green exhaust coming out of the things.
V10s would require at least twice the amount of fuel, thus requiring a return to refueling. Yay!!! We get to watch the fastest racecars sitting stationary for 10s twice a race. How exciting!!! And the occasional fireworks show.
Remember. They "only" needed 160kg for the whole race because they were so much lighter.
I think if you added TJI direct injection and today's low friction designs plus KERS they might even need less than 100kg of fuel!
Direct injection doesn't work well past 12k rpm. KERs must be powered, mguh is the perfect combo to KERS, but it turns the wasted engine noise into electrical power, you noise worshippers don't like that. The low friction is because you have 6 pistons instead of 10, and those 6 pistons are moving around 11k rpm rather than 18k rpm.
There is never a way that v10 will use less fuel than current PU, unless it is making drastically less power. Again, it must be repeated, in 1988 the 1.5L turbo cars were both fuel(195L) and boost(2.5 bars) limited against 3.5L unlimited engines and still the turbo cars won every single race. Asking for v10s back is like asking for carburation back, it is absurd and backwards, just for the sake of noise.
This is the perfect case for bringing back the V10 engines. Sustainable fuels. Can't get greener than that! You might see green exhaust coming out of the things.
V10s would require at least twice the amount of fuel, thus requiring a return to refueling. Yay!!! We get to watch the fastest racecars sitting stationary for 10s twice a race. How exciting!!! And the occasional fireworks show.
So all the combustion efficiency achieved through last two decades is useless and the V10s still need the same volume of fuel as they did back then? If F1 achieves the objective of shortening and lightening the cars, it would require much lesser force to drive them around. Together, it's still conceivable to have V10s back and not such a long shot.
You want a shorter car, but you also want to move from v6 to v10, do you guys even think before you post? V10 is almost twice as long as v6, and the cars are not long because of the PU, they are long for aero reasons. The more floor area you have the more downforce you can generate. Also, when they made the cars wider they had to make them longer to lower drag. The current PUs are not a problem in F1, you are barking up the wrong tree. The current fuel tank has about the same volume as the v10 cars which had to refuel twice a race.
The combustion efficiency achieved since the end of v10 era pertains to lean burning direct injection turbo(low rev) engines, not to high rev naturally aspirated engines. The next progressions in I.C.E. are in plasma ignition and bio fuels from non food waste sources.
Last edited by ENGINE TUNER on 15 Aug 2022, 18:19, edited 1 time in total.
Again, as I seem to always ask ( ) why mandate a V10? there is a cost cap.
If someone wants a flat 4 or inline 3 why force them to go the V10 route?
The engine manufacturers don't want to compete on cylinder count, they have chosen (correctly in my view) to compete on efficiency. They put billions into the sport and therefore have paid for the right to dictate what they want to compete on.
Around 1994 all the manufacturers converged to a v10, it wasn't made mandatory until later when the customer teams wanted more spec mounting points so it was easier for them to switch suppliers. Convergence will always occur given enough regulatory stability.
A question that depends on peoples perspective, and possibly expectations, but what is the difference (in sound) between a V10 at 8k and a V6 at 11 k?
There could be different firing orders on either, and slightly more 'bangs'.
My personal preference for sound is the longer pipes always sound better.
Direct injection doesn't work well past 12k rpm. KERs must be powered, mguh is the perfect combo to KERS, but it turns the wasted engine noise into electrical power, you noise worshippers don't like that. The low friction is because you have 6 pistons instead of 10, and those 6 pistons are moving around 11k rpm rather than 18k rpm.
There is never a way that v10 will use less fuel than current PU, unless it is making drastically less power. Again, it must be repeated, in 1988 the 1.5L turbo cars were both fuel(195L) and boost(2.5 bars) limited against 3.5L unlimited engines and still the turbo cars won every single race. Asking for v10s back is like asking for carburation back, it is absurd and backwards, just for the sake of noise.
The last BMW V10 which was mothballed was DI iirc. They currently time 5 (?) injection events within ~.0005 s duration if I'm not mistaken, without much by way of DI innovation. Likely off the shelf piezo actuator tech from existing suppliers. Which is to say it may not represent the limit of development. The energy content of exhaust noise is low in either case; the turbine is moved primarily by exhaust heat and pressure. Equating decibels to frequency is a misunderstanding or disingenuous argumentation.
The V10's were the best sound of F1 imo. V12 just about there too.
The V8 exhaust blown diffuser was aurally interesting.
I doubt many people could really tell the difference between a V12 and V10 F1 engine. Both had a high pitch and both were painfully loud when heard trackside. And many probably wouldn't know the Ford V8 in Michael's Benetton from the Renault V10 in Hill's Williams. Or between the Honda V12 in Senna's MP4/7A and the Renault V10 in Mansell's FW14B.
All great engines and all equally iconic because, between them, they all defined the sound of a period in F1 that many, now middle-aged, fans first tasted the sport.
F1 engines are certainly not painful and don't feel too loud imho. The GT engines are way more painful. At least for me. It always was quite the relief when the Porsche or Corvettes stopped and the Formula cars started again.
the exact, same 2004 engine regulations, with only one twist. Open up spark mechanisms. im sure manufacturers can and will come up with something much better than the current spark plug.
these engines were making 980hp with 2004(!!!!) technology. A modern V10 will no doubt be around 1200hp with all the juice, without throwing billions at it. How much does a complete HYBRID Power UNIT costs? was it around 30 or 40 MILLIONS?
How much can a V10 cost? With
another thing that is a modern argument, the road relevancy and leading tech fairy tale. From a road relevancy standpoint the hybrid V6s are a failure, no road car has an MGUH, MGUK aside from few exceptions. The ONLY road car to have an MGU H is the AMG ONE and it's not that grand anyway, heavy, relatively underpowered, the Valkyrie is a superior machine. I vividly remember browsing some F1 forums back in 2010, 2011, watching races, etc. I NEVER saw the words "road relevancy" come up in the screen, somehow few years later all you hear is the same thing over and over.
Then come complex fuel formulations that wont make the street market, this is also pointless, it's all a tale, since when F1 was supposed to be the place to test technologies to THEN be brought to road cars? as I said, I have never heard of such thing until few years ago.
lighter and raging cars are the way to go, it's what "open-wheel formula" has been about since its inception. Cars are bloated, heavy, all thanks to current PUs, when you have FORMULA 1 cars LONGER than commercial trucks, it's when you start to realize somethings odd in the formula. (pun intended)
people went nuts when the R25 rolled in abu dhabi...
The V10's were the best sound of F1 imo. V12 just about there too.
The V8 exhaust blown diffuser was aurally interesting.
I doubt many people could really tell the difference between a V12 and V10 F1 engine.
Of course they can, 5/10 cylinder piston engines have unique harmonics compared to 2/4/8 cylinders or 3/6/12 cylinders.
The analogous engine layouts have similar dominant orders to the acoustics.
"Take rpm (in Hz) * number of cylinders / 2 (as it's four-stroke, half the cylinders fire per revolution), >>>>> dominant orders of one (say the 10 cylinder) will be similar to the first overtone of the dominant order of the other (say 5 cylinder) and so on" ...and the 5/10 cylinder will have different dominant orders and overtones to a 4 or 8 cylinder with a flatplane crank, and different again to a 3, 6 or 12 cylinder engine.
