- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
xxChrisxx wrote:The answer to this is very, very simple. Gear 7th longer.kalinka wrote:I'm quite OK with all engine proposals on long term, but what hurts me is the rev limit of 10k or whatever RPM. We saw what a rev. limit can do against overtaking in SPA, where Vettel was unbable to overtake just because hitting the rev. limit.
EDIT: And I already have my response message typed out for what I inevitably think is coming. It goes along the lines of "you can't have your cake and eat it too".
..Memory is not as good as this old dude thought. 
.It was half of a 389..I'da sworn it was half a 421..Perhaps the most unusual variation of the durable Pontiac V8 was not a V8 at all, but an inline four. Created for the 1961 Pontiac Tempest, it was essentially the right bank of the 389, sharing most of its tooling and many of its parts (more than 120 were identical). The bore and stroke of 4 1⁄16 in (103.2 mm) and 3 3⁄4 in (95.2 mm) were the same, giving a displacement of 194.4 cu in (3.186 L).
The article makes it clear that the majority of teams support a 1.6L L4 and Goss (McLaren) is supporting that formula. Unfortunately the full interview isn't printed at Motorsport.com, but the context makes it clear.xpensive wrote:I think you have developed a knack for reading your own preferences out of almost anything nowadays WB, where is Goss saying that McLaren wants an I4 and what makes you think that Ferrari would be alone favouring a V6?
I was gonna ask the same thing!xpensive wrote:I think you have developed a knack for reading your own preferences out of almost anything nowadays WB, where is Goss saying that McLaren wants an I4 and what makes you think that Ferrari would be alone favouring a V6?WhiteBlue wrote:McLaren have distanced themselves from the Ferrari position and have pointed out that they support a 1.6L L4 engine.
Interesting to see one automotive team to join the the privateers. It looks like Ferrari could be alone on this.Motorsport.com wrote:Tim Goss, chief engineer of McLaren's 2010 car the MP4-25, said the British team is supportive of the new rules.
"I think for Formula One to show it is at the cutting edge of technology in regards to engines and to promote fuel efficiency, it's entirely the right thing to do," he said during a Vodafone teleconference.
Goss also contradicted Marmorini's claim that there isn't enough time before 2013 to design the new engines.
"As long as the decisions are made shortly, and I think everyone is in a frame of mind to bring it to a conclusion fairly promptly, (there is enough time)."
I think we've got a Sigmund Freud here on F1T. 
I feel sorry for ferrari; all manufactures have special interests with the L4, even Mclaren, now that Gordon Murray is making his smart cars. Ferrari have no commercial interests with an L4 whatsoever.WhiteBlue wrote:The article makes that it clear that the majority of teams support a 1.6L L4 and Goss (McLaren) is supporting that formula. Unfortunately the full interview isn't printed at Motorsport.com, but the context makes it clear.xpensive wrote:I think you have developed a knack for reading your own preferences out of almost anything nowadays WB, where is Goss saying that McLaren wants an I4 and what makes you think that Ferrari would be alone favouring a V6?
If have no clue how Mercedes and Renault see this issue but it could be possible that they agree with McLaren and not Ferrari. Both manufacturers do smaller engines as well. Not all manufacturers are as rigid as Ferrari. VW for instance promote the L4 although they use W16, W12 and V8s in heir luxury cars.
This was the you can't have everything response. They set up their car to have a set max speed, they couldn't overtake becuase of it. Sucks to be them.Ok. You didn't get my point. I just don't want to a rev limit being a limit to overtake. If you choose longer 7th gear you loose some of acceleration.
They had this up until 2007. And if you remeber people were spending absolutely stupid amounts of money getting more and more revs for no percivable gain. There were two ways to stop this.Why must the regulations say anything about revs? Why not allow a driver if he wants to take a risk, and go for the overtake, and go over the rev limit if he wants for a few seconds ?
I personally think there should be no rev limit, and that it should be determined by how well the engine is engineered. Rev limits will quickly become self limiting with a set amount of engines per driver. I don't really care about costs becuase im not paying.If the engine brakes, so what...that was his decision. It was stupid to see in SPA, that when RBR would overtake, they hit the 18k limit.
I can agree with you on that. That was my point too. I don't want the limit because of the regulations. If they can't afford a higher limit because of the design, that's OK, but now with the 18k limit, if you have a less powerful engine, and you can get finally a good slipstream somehow, you still can't overtake, even if you are ready to take risk damaging your engine.xxChrisxx wrote: I personally think there should be no rev limit, and that it should be determined by how well the engine is engineered. Rev limits will quickly become self limiting with a set amount of engines per driver. I don't really care about costs becuase im not paying.
No, it can't, and I'm glad it can'txxChrisxx wrote: You keep saying that 'when the RBR could overtake'. Well the fact of the matter is, it couldn't. The setup didn't allow it, and thats just tough ---.
But I'm still feeling it's not fair if the rule remains like this for long.For all their posturing Ferrari still really want to be in F1, if the rules state the engine is to be an inline 4, they will turn up with an inline 4.xpensive wrote:Nobody knows for a fact which of the engine manufacturers supports what layout, more than an article saying Ferrari won't have an I4. But we can speculate, which is great fun, as long as nobody claims to have a divine insight on the outcome?
+1xxChrisxx wrote: The road car transferrability aspect they REALLY have screwed up. The focus is on an easy to plug gimmick such as KERS. Where as the things that would really help development such as new machining techniques, coatings and surface/heat treatments of components, or whole new materials is all banned, purely becuse that's "boring" engineering stuff you can't easily market.
+1 alsokalinka wrote: +1
I really miss the good old days, when before every race the commentators were discussing new exotic techniques that were used in engines,gearboxes..etc. Now that's all banned. With old regulations there was a chance to something eventually ccould be transferred to road cars, like active suspension, traction control, semi-automatic gearboxes...etc. It was just FIA's unability to control these things that led to current rules. No question some of them had to be banned, but again...what tecnology were transferred to road cars after year 2000 ? I can't tell. What can you transfer now ? F-Duct? Flexing wings,floors, blown diffusors ? None of them.
It was probably the report at the following URL which btw proposed a 1.8L V6. I have discussed it in detail.djos wrote:I saw an article recently were Ferrari where (sensibly I thought) suggesting they lop 2 cylinders off the current V8 providing a 1.6ltr V6 and then turbo-charging it (every other item would stay the same as the V8).
The rational was it would save money on gearbox and chassis's not needing to be re-designed to fit an I4 and the engine would be cheaper to develop providing teams had to keep the components in-common with the V8 untouched.
The lopping off of two cylinders was last proposed and executed in 2005 and it turned out to be a totally different engine according to the experts at that time. And those were both port injected NA engines that were on very similar rev levels and internal pressures. This time there would probably not be a single part to carry over. Not even the spark plugs.WhiteBlue wrote:I believe that this is not the true reason for the proposed formula. An optimized 1.8L turbocharged V6 would have a completely different engine technology compared to a NA 2.4L V8. The engine rpms would be much lower in a turbo engine with direct injection. As a consequence the bore/stroke ratio would be different, which necessitates different engine and cylinder blocks, the firing order and the crank shaft would be different including the bearing technology. The loads from inertial forces and working forces would be different requiring a totally new design of pistons and connecting rods. The valve trains and ports would be different in a new formula due to the use of variable timing and lift. This would also impact on the cylinder head design. At the bottom line you see that nothing of the old engine would remain. There is no real option to carry anything over from the old formula into the turbocharged downsized formula.Luca Marmorini wrote:A 1.8 litre V6 engine design would be much easier to adapt from the current 2.4 litre V8s as there is not enough time to design a completely new engine for 2013 with the necessary reliability to have only four units per driver and year.
Luca seems to have a point here as the chassis design of the last 20 years was geared towards V engines with 8-12 cylinders and predominantly 90° V-angle. But again a careful examination reveals that F1 is embarking on a completely new chassis design concept anyway. The new chassis are supposed to have ground effect and side pots which are coming much more forward to protect the driver against side impact. Both points have a huge impact on chassis design. There will be more floor area further forward reducing the necessity to have big front wings. There is also the option to have dedicated venturi channels as used by the the American Champ Cars for many years. The slimmer L4 engine format would be beneficial to a chassis design with venturis. So again it turns out that Marmorini's point is not standing up to examination. It simply masks the fact that Ferrari serve their own agenda like everyone else in F1.Luca Marmorini wrote:A 4-cylinder design would require a complete overhaul of the chassis designs.