| donjuan | 03-20-2002 04:15 PM |
FIA announces F1 One-Engine rule, crash rule...
[URL]http://www.f1-live.com/en/headlines/news/detail/020320204159.shtml[/URL]
| pio!pio! | 03-20-2002 04:49 PM |
I be tthis rule will help backmarkers becuase they will change their engines and not lose position since they are at the back of the starting grid anyway
| ForceFed4 | 03-20-2002 05:03 PM |
I'm not sure I like this change (the engine rule). As someone said during the Malaysian GP broadcast, I'm not sure this will actually result in any reduction in cost. Seems to me that development is one of the major costs in F1. Restriction of each driver to 1 engine per weekend doesn't reduce the cost of engine development and could radically increase it I think. It's gonna take some damn fine (expensive) engineering to produce engines that maintain the current power levels and can last an entire race weekend. I know I'm basically just paraphrasing what someone (I forget who) was saying at Sepang, but I really believe it. If F1 was really serious about cutting costs I think there are a lot of other areas they could look at first, before touching issues that could effect/hurt the actual racing.
I also don't agree with the more severe penalties for being involved in "an incident", but how I feel about it really depends on how much discretion is used in its application. I really don't think it should apply to either incidents this year. The turn one crash in Australia was too ambiguous, really, regardless of personal biases. Who would you penalize? Ralf, who clearly ran into Barrichello; or Barrichello, who may have violated the regulations as to how many times you can change lines? Or both of them?
I think Montoya's penalty in Malaysia was uncalled for, let alone a 10-place hit in the next race, hell, even Schumacher said as much from what I understand.
I don't consider myself to be anti-safety, don't get me wrong, I don't want to see drivers punting each other off the track constantly, but this IS motorsport. They're supposed to be racing at the edge, maximum performance; and occasionally inicidents happen when that's how it is. But if you're not racing to the highest potential, at the edge, why even bother? Just pack it in and go home.
For a long while F1 was not exactly the most exciting of motorsports shall we say. Now it seems there's some real competition and things are getting heated and exciting again, and what does the FIA want to do? Make more rules, of course. I can't see this 10-place penalty being used on more than a couple-3 incidents within the past few seasons, and most of those were dealt with pretty severely at the time anyway; I just don't see the need for it.
Then again, I'm not an F1 steward, so what do I know.
I also don't agree with the more severe penalties for being involved in "an incident", but how I feel about it really depends on how much discretion is used in its application. I really don't think it should apply to either incidents this year. The turn one crash in Australia was too ambiguous, really, regardless of personal biases. Who would you penalize? Ralf, who clearly ran into Barrichello; or Barrichello, who may have violated the regulations as to how many times you can change lines? Or both of them?
I think Montoya's penalty in Malaysia was uncalled for, let alone a 10-place hit in the next race, hell, even Schumacher said as much from what I understand.
I don't consider myself to be anti-safety, don't get me wrong, I don't want to see drivers punting each other off the track constantly, but this IS motorsport. They're supposed to be racing at the edge, maximum performance; and occasionally inicidents happen when that's how it is. But if you're not racing to the highest potential, at the edge, why even bother? Just pack it in and go home.
For a long while F1 was not exactly the most exciting of motorsports shall we say. Now it seems there's some real competition and things are getting heated and exciting again, and what does the FIA want to do? Make more rules, of course. I can't see this 10-place penalty being used on more than a couple-3 incidents within the past few seasons, and most of those were dealt with pretty severely at the time anyway; I just don't see the need for it.
Then again, I'm not an F1 steward, so what do I know.
| Arioch | 03-20-2002 05:20 PM |
[img]http://somershoe.com/images/tardface.gif[/img]
need i say more about the 1 engine rule...?
dumb, dumb, and dumb.
and it was peter windsor that was saying that it will raise the cost.
need i say more about the 1 engine rule...?
dumb, dumb, and dumb.
and it was peter windsor that was saying that it will raise the cost.
| johnfelstead | 03-20-2002 05:53 PM |
F1 is dead. HUGE MISTAKE :(
You have any problem with the race car, say a gearbox oil seal failure (more common than you realise) you have to take the spare car. That = change of engine = move from pole to P10. Utter nonsense!
Penalise for having a racing incident by moving you back 10 places at the next race. Like thats going to be aplied consistently??? Is it hell. Utter nonsense!
That will increase engine costs enormously, all that will mean is the teams will have to use 5 times the dyno time to prove new parts, dyno time is mega expensive. I can see Ferrari building 5 times the number of dyno cells they currently have so development isnt stiffled.
Totally absurd changes, they are all smoking something they shouldnt in the FIA offices.
Stunned :(:mad:
You have any problem with the race car, say a gearbox oil seal failure (more common than you realise) you have to take the spare car. That = change of engine = move from pole to P10. Utter nonsense!
Penalise for having a racing incident by moving you back 10 places at the next race. Like thats going to be aplied consistently??? Is it hell. Utter nonsense!
That will increase engine costs enormously, all that will mean is the teams will have to use 5 times the dyno time to prove new parts, dyno time is mega expensive. I can see Ferrari building 5 times the number of dyno cells they currently have so development isnt stiffled.
Totally absurd changes, they are all smoking something they shouldnt in the FIA offices.
Stunned :(:mad:
| ForceFed4 | 03-20-2002 06:25 PM |
Glad to see I'm not the only one to be upset with this; I'm no F1 expert, so I was wondering if I was just missing the benefits of these changes. Guess not though.
The only bright point I see is that the FIA has un-done rule changes that had adverse effects in the past (The flurry of rule changes and "un-changes" after Senna's death come to mind...), but the rest of this season may be shot. We'll see I guess.
The only bright point I see is that the FIA has un-done rule changes that had adverse effects in the past (The flurry of rule changes and "un-changes" after Senna's death come to mind...), but the rest of this season may be shot. We'll see I guess.
| ForzaF1 | 03-20-2002 07:11 PM |
That should be "dumb, dumber & Max Mosely" What an asinie thing to do! As mentioned above it won't do anything to reduce costs either for the teams or the engine manufacturers. It will give an insentive to the teams to minimize track time during the practice sessions. I guess when this rules goes into effect I won't bother going out to Indy for Friday Practice, just show up for qualifying.
| bohica | 03-20-2002 08:03 PM |
what a waste of money this is going to be, what needs to be done is ban testing,
| Marquis | 03-21-2002 07:40 AM |
[QUOTE]what a waste of money this is going to be, what needs to be done is ban testing,[/QUOTE]
You mean on-track testing? I'm not convinced that will reduce costs one iota. The less track-time a team can have, the more money they will spend on expensive simulation rigs. This will not help the little guys at all. Ferrari, McLaren, Toyota, etc. will simply use that as an excuse to build multi-billion dollar wind tunnels, shaker rigs, engine dynos, and so forth.
I'm not sure what the solution is to control costs, but neither banning testing nor this new rule change will help.
You mean on-track testing? I'm not convinced that will reduce costs one iota. The less track-time a team can have, the more money they will spend on expensive simulation rigs. This will not help the little guys at all. Ferrari, McLaren, Toyota, etc. will simply use that as an excuse to build multi-billion dollar wind tunnels, shaker rigs, engine dynos, and so forth.
I'm not sure what the solution is to control costs, but neither banning testing nor this new rule change will help.
| Gozzi | 03-21-2002 08:23 AM |
rebuild def
Have they defined what an "engine rebuild" consists of? Just the same block but change everything over from qualifying to race?
| Rick Hunter | 03-21-2002 10:38 AM |
Damn, I want to get some of that stuff they're smoking in the UK as it seems to really screw with their heads. :D Heh, soon passing won't be allowed since it can lead to a collision. :rolleyes:
Imagine they try to implement that rule in Nascar, or Cart... LOL
Imagine they try to implement that rule in Nascar, or Cart... LOL
| Ferg | 03-21-2002 10:56 AM |
I'm waiting to see what the reactions from the engine manufacturers are. They were supposed to enjoy stability in the engine regs through 2007. Now they'll need to do serious redesigns to improve reliability. Uggg. What is Bernie thinking?
At least Williams and McLaren voted against this.
It won't close up the grid any, the top teams will always be the top teams.
At least Williams and McLaren voted against this.
It won't close up the grid any, the top teams will always be the top teams.
| donjuan | 03-21-2002 10:58 AM |
It won't save much cost either, building an engine after it's developed is relatively cheap when compared to the cost of developing it.
| hotrod | 03-21-2002 02:14 PM |
one engine is already the rule in NASCAR
Rick:
Sorry to disappoint you, but NASCAR beat F1 on this rule change. They are running one engine for the race this year, and if you change it you go to the back of the pack, ie pole sitter would loose 43 positions --- Geeeze I hate it when that happens.
The rational for cutting costs is that (in NASCAR and I assume F1) they were building grenade motors for qualifying that were only good for 5 - 6 laps before they blew up. Then they were changing to practice motors that were run for maybe 100 mile of practice. They might blow up 1 of these a week end if they were experimenting with high rev gear trains etc. Then a new race motor for the actual race. Result the teams had several engine development programs.
qualification motor absolute max power must live 5-6 laps.
development motors for general engine development
short track motor, light weight internals for maximum acceleration off the corners give up a little durability as engine does not run max rpm for extended periods.
Super speedway motors designed to run continously at max rpm for nearly 4 hours. Maximum high rpm power to fight aero drag at high speed, give up some low end power for durability.
The teams were bringing 5 - 6 engines to each race, the intent is to make it so each team will only need to bring maybe 2 motors for each race. This will mostly effect the small shops as it will cut their costs by something like $100,000 ot $150,000 per race.
In the case of F1 the number is probably closer to $500,000 per race.
The side effect of this is that instead of replacing the motor with a new one, they will be doing in the car rebuilds like the drag racers do between rounds. Some of the double AA fuelers are essentially rebuilding everything except the block several times a day.
In endurace races like Sebring and Le Mans they can change everything but the block during the race. I think Nascar is also using that as the measure of an engine replacement but I'm not positive. In Nascar since they are using push rod over head valve engines they are now changing rocker arms between qualification and the race so they can use a higher valve lift during qulifications to get that little bit of extra power. Each rule change will lead to new measures to minimize its down side, and maximize its up side so it will be interesting to see the changes.
Larry
Sorry to disappoint you, but NASCAR beat F1 on this rule change. They are running one engine for the race this year, and if you change it you go to the back of the pack, ie pole sitter would loose 43 positions --- Geeeze I hate it when that happens.
The rational for cutting costs is that (in NASCAR and I assume F1) they were building grenade motors for qualifying that were only good for 5 - 6 laps before they blew up. Then they were changing to practice motors that were run for maybe 100 mile of practice. They might blow up 1 of these a week end if they were experimenting with high rev gear trains etc. Then a new race motor for the actual race. Result the teams had several engine development programs.
qualification motor absolute max power must live 5-6 laps.
development motors for general engine development
short track motor, light weight internals for maximum acceleration off the corners give up a little durability as engine does not run max rpm for extended periods.
Super speedway motors designed to run continously at max rpm for nearly 4 hours. Maximum high rpm power to fight aero drag at high speed, give up some low end power for durability.
The teams were bringing 5 - 6 engines to each race, the intent is to make it so each team will only need to bring maybe 2 motors for each race. This will mostly effect the small shops as it will cut their costs by something like $100,000 ot $150,000 per race.
In the case of F1 the number is probably closer to $500,000 per race.
The side effect of this is that instead of replacing the motor with a new one, they will be doing in the car rebuilds like the drag racers do between rounds. Some of the double AA fuelers are essentially rebuilding everything except the block several times a day.
In endurace races like Sebring and Le Mans they can change everything but the block during the race. I think Nascar is also using that as the measure of an engine replacement but I'm not positive. In Nascar since they are using push rod over head valve engines they are now changing rocker arms between qualification and the race so they can use a higher valve lift during qulifications to get that little bit of extra power. Each rule change will lead to new measures to minimize its down side, and maximize its up side so it will be interesting to see the changes.
Larry
| johnfelstead | 03-21-2002 02:25 PM |
F1 engines are not good ole boys production based V8's. You cant compare the two at all. It takes a few days to assemble an F1 engine from a kit, thats just bolting it together, not developing it.
F1 engines form part of the chassis structure so you cant just pop the heads and sump off either even if you made the engine as basic as a NASCAR V8. :rolleyes: Like thats what F1 is all about.
Banning testing raises the costs and increases the gap between the haves and havenots, they already have sophisticated test rigs, that programme would just get accelerated.
Th FIA is not based in the UK, it's based in France, This year is the first year ever that a British Guy is not on the FIA competition rules board. Say no more. :monkey:
F1 engines form part of the chassis structure so you cant just pop the heads and sump off either even if you made the engine as basic as a NASCAR V8. :rolleyes: Like thats what F1 is all about.
Banning testing raises the costs and increases the gap between the haves and havenots, they already have sophisticated test rigs, that programme would just get accelerated.
Th FIA is not based in the UK, it's based in France, This year is the first year ever that a British Guy is not on the FIA competition rules board. Say no more. :monkey:
| hotrod | 03-21-2002 03:08 PM |
shop building vs fixing in the pits
True, american racers tend to build engines that can be fixed, rather than replaced.
I was not talking about building an engine from a pile of parts, but replacing an essential component, like a cylinder head, burned piston etc. in a completed running ( or formerly running ) engine. Most race mechanics can replace a cracked cylinder head or a head with a burnt valve in a time period measured in 10's of minutes, so if the F1 folks can't put new pistons or new cylinder heads in an engine over night between qualification and race day there is either something wrong with the design of the car or the highly paid mechanics.
As Audi proved on the LMP cars, with proper attention to detail even major componets like transmissions,and suspension units can be replaced in less that an hour.
Building an engine in a shop enviornment and making an emergency repair so your car can make the grid are totally different situations.
The rule change will force the designers to consider little details like repairability when they design the cars.
As far as being part of the chassis is concerned, that actually makes it easier. Pop a half a dozen fasteners and the engine is out on the floor where you can work on it, you don't have to try to work around a spider web of tubing, or stressed chassis elements.
As far as not being comparable engines, sorry I can't buy that. They both have crank shafts, pistons and valves, are held together by bolts and gaskets. Like all race engines they are built to high tolerences and use more expensive materials. The only significant difference between the engines is in valve actuation, so what makes the F1 engine so difficult to repair/rebuild ?
Larry
I was not talking about building an engine from a pile of parts, but replacing an essential component, like a cylinder head, burned piston etc. in a completed running ( or formerly running ) engine. Most race mechanics can replace a cracked cylinder head or a head with a burnt valve in a time period measured in 10's of minutes, so if the F1 folks can't put new pistons or new cylinder heads in an engine over night between qualification and race day there is either something wrong with the design of the car or the highly paid mechanics.
As Audi proved on the LMP cars, with proper attention to detail even major componets like transmissions,and suspension units can be replaced in less that an hour.
Building an engine in a shop enviornment and making an emergency repair so your car can make the grid are totally different situations.
The rule change will force the designers to consider little details like repairability when they design the cars.
As far as being part of the chassis is concerned, that actually makes it easier. Pop a half a dozen fasteners and the engine is out on the floor where you can work on it, you don't have to try to work around a spider web of tubing, or stressed chassis elements.
As far as not being comparable engines, sorry I can't buy that. They both have crank shafts, pistons and valves, are held together by bolts and gaskets. Like all race engines they are built to high tolerences and use more expensive materials. The only significant difference between the engines is in valve actuation, so what makes the F1 engine so difficult to repair/rebuild ?
Larry
| Patrick Olsen | 03-21-2002 04:07 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead [/i]
[B]F1 engines are not good ole boys production based V8's.[/B][/QUOTE]
:lol: :lol: :lol: You're kidding me, right? NASCAR engines are "production based"? John, I think your bias against NASCAR is getting the better of you here. I hate to break it to you, but there's nothing "production based" about a NASCAR Winston Cup motor, not even close. Oh, wait, I guess they use valves, pistons, crankshafts, etc, just like production engines do. Hmmm, so do F1 engines, so I guess those must be "production based" too. :rolleyes:
"Good ole boys" :rolleyes: Spare us the elitist comments. Anyone who thinks a Winston Cup motor is production based and built by "good ole boys" is just plain ole ignorant.
Pat Olsen
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
[B]F1 engines are not good ole boys production based V8's.[/B][/QUOTE]
:lol: :lol: :lol: You're kidding me, right? NASCAR engines are "production based"? John, I think your bias against NASCAR is getting the better of you here. I hate to break it to you, but there's nothing "production based" about a NASCAR Winston Cup motor, not even close. Oh, wait, I guess they use valves, pistons, crankshafts, etc, just like production engines do. Hmmm, so do F1 engines, so I guess those must be "production based" too. :rolleyes:
"Good ole boys" :rolleyes: Spare us the elitist comments. Anyone who thinks a Winston Cup motor is production based and built by "good ole boys" is just plain ole ignorant.
Pat Olsen
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
| johnfelstead | 03-21-2002 05:59 PM |
Crikey, the good ole boys is a fun comment. surely you can see that? Anyway.
As to knowing the diference between a NASCAR engine based on production engine technology and an F1 engine, i think i am pretty qualified to comment. They are generically very diferent concepts and designs.
I was the first person in the world to build a 5litre Rover V8 based engine using a completely new design of cylinder head that bolted straight on yet gave a 40% gain in flow over the best ever previous race prepared Rover head. We took that from a genuine 390BHP to 450BHP with no other changes. I ran this for 4 years in the Esprit GT car i built. The 2nd one built to this design was used by Morgan to race in the FIA GT series and was used at Laguna Seca amongst other places.
Right now i am building the first ever 6 litre V8 rover engine ever attempted in the world. This is based on the production rover V8 3.9 litre that is installed in the Range Rover and hundreds of thousands of Rovers, TVR's, MG's TR8's etc. It's the old 3.5 litre Buick V8 that was sold to Rover in the 60's.
I still class this as a production based engine, the only carry over component is the timing chain cover. We have cast a new block, new heads, new injection system, It uses unique cam, follower, valvetrain, crank, rods, pistons, oil system, water system, etc. etc. Externally the block still looks like a rover V8, it has the same pickup points, it follows the same concept of single cam, pushrods, 2 valves per cylinder etc.etc. It will produce 600BHP normally aspirated. The turbocharged 4.7litre version of this engine produced 947BHP and was used in the MGX land speed record car run in Boneville and driven by Andy Green of Thrust SSC fame.
This engine is still a production car based engine, it is a million miles away from the concept of a formula one engine.
Sure you can build the cars to make them easy to remove the engine, they do that routinely now anyway. What is very diferent about an F1 engine swap is that the engine is replaced with a fully dressed new engine that someone in the factory took a week over to build. If you are going to make it so the engines can be stripped and component replaced then the design has to be completely revisited from scratch, that is going to cost an absolute fortune. The concept of the engines basically cant work in a rebuild situation. When F1 engines fail, they are junk, there is nothing left in those things after a failure at 19,000 rpm. I hope you understand that if F1 does go to rebuildable engines the sport will be fundementally changed.
F1 has never used this idea of building engines since the introduction of the Ford DFV in the 60's. You simply cant compare them because they are enormously diferent in design internally and in the execution of their construction.
This rule change is absurd, F1 teams wont use rebuildable engines, they will design an engine that is as reliable as possible giving the mileage and the performance, if they fail they wont have a choice but to swap the complete engine. Basically they will gamble because if they dont, someone else will and 90% of the time it will be OK. The 10% when it isnt will turn F1 into a farce.
This rule is changing F1 fundementally, it's absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Patric, one thing i most definately am not when it comes to race cars and engines is ignorant.
As to knowing the diference between a NASCAR engine based on production engine technology and an F1 engine, i think i am pretty qualified to comment. They are generically very diferent concepts and designs.
I was the first person in the world to build a 5litre Rover V8 based engine using a completely new design of cylinder head that bolted straight on yet gave a 40% gain in flow over the best ever previous race prepared Rover head. We took that from a genuine 390BHP to 450BHP with no other changes. I ran this for 4 years in the Esprit GT car i built. The 2nd one built to this design was used by Morgan to race in the FIA GT series and was used at Laguna Seca amongst other places.
Right now i am building the first ever 6 litre V8 rover engine ever attempted in the world. This is based on the production rover V8 3.9 litre that is installed in the Range Rover and hundreds of thousands of Rovers, TVR's, MG's TR8's etc. It's the old 3.5 litre Buick V8 that was sold to Rover in the 60's.
I still class this as a production based engine, the only carry over component is the timing chain cover. We have cast a new block, new heads, new injection system, It uses unique cam, follower, valvetrain, crank, rods, pistons, oil system, water system, etc. etc. Externally the block still looks like a rover V8, it has the same pickup points, it follows the same concept of single cam, pushrods, 2 valves per cylinder etc.etc. It will produce 600BHP normally aspirated. The turbocharged 4.7litre version of this engine produced 947BHP and was used in the MGX land speed record car run in Boneville and driven by Andy Green of Thrust SSC fame.
This engine is still a production car based engine, it is a million miles away from the concept of a formula one engine.
Sure you can build the cars to make them easy to remove the engine, they do that routinely now anyway. What is very diferent about an F1 engine swap is that the engine is replaced with a fully dressed new engine that someone in the factory took a week over to build. If you are going to make it so the engines can be stripped and component replaced then the design has to be completely revisited from scratch, that is going to cost an absolute fortune. The concept of the engines basically cant work in a rebuild situation. When F1 engines fail, they are junk, there is nothing left in those things after a failure at 19,000 rpm. I hope you understand that if F1 does go to rebuildable engines the sport will be fundementally changed.
F1 has never used this idea of building engines since the introduction of the Ford DFV in the 60's. You simply cant compare them because they are enormously diferent in design internally and in the execution of their construction.
This rule change is absurd, F1 teams wont use rebuildable engines, they will design an engine that is as reliable as possible giving the mileage and the performance, if they fail they wont have a choice but to swap the complete engine. Basically they will gamble because if they dont, someone else will and 90% of the time it will be OK. The 10% when it isnt will turn F1 into a farce.
This rule is changing F1 fundementally, it's absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Patric, one thing i most definately am not when it comes to race cars and engines is ignorant.
| hotrod | 03-21-2002 07:03 PM |
choices and intents of racing
I understand your usage of the term production based, and agree with that interpretation.
Some of us Yanks do get a little tired of defending our native race formats. So I hope you will understand that without a smiley face your comment could have been easily taken as just another swipe.
No harm intended, no offense taken. :D
I know each racing style stresses different aspects of the art and each has something to teach all others, The drag racers can learn from the motorcycle racers, and F1 can learn from the lowly dirt track sprint cars.
A purpose built race only engine when the rules allow will always make different engineering decisions in design and execution.
Unfortunately I have never had the opportunity to look inside a current F1 engine. I imagine the number of people that actually know from first person experience how they are built is very limited.
When you talk about failures I agree totally with you as far as primary componet failure. Even at 5-6,000 rpm a broken con rod or spun bearing turns the engine to junk. Where I was questioning is the large number of "failures" that only result in the engine being a little off. Leaking head gaskets. Valves that do not completely seal. Holed pistons (sometimes) only result in huge clouds of smoke and power loss with little physical damage. Cracked cylinder heads, etc.
Then the question gets back to what is the function of racing. I personally do not ascribe to the idea that F1 should be the domain of technology that is so exotic that it will never see transfer to production cars in my life time. I much prefer formulas that mandate engines that derive directly from production engines. The development curve changes because you evolve from a production design to a racing design, instead of from the abstract ideal back to production. In my humble opinion this provides more real world useful information to both the consumer and the engineer.
Of course the same could be said of the WRC cars being even remotely connected to the showroom cars. Only in the most abstract sense is my WRX similar to the works WRC cars. At least they retain the basic drive train, engine block and suspension package. As a result the production car is a much better package but ---- when you are only retaining 10% of the original platform it is something of a stretch to think you drove a race car off the dealers show room floor.
If I had my way NASCAR would return to a formula that built off production chassis and running gear but alas I guess that era is gone.
Larry
Some of us Yanks do get a little tired of defending our native race formats. So I hope you will understand that without a smiley face your comment could have been easily taken as just another swipe.
No harm intended, no offense taken. :D
I know each racing style stresses different aspects of the art and each has something to teach all others, The drag racers can learn from the motorcycle racers, and F1 can learn from the lowly dirt track sprint cars.
A purpose built race only engine when the rules allow will always make different engineering decisions in design and execution.
Unfortunately I have never had the opportunity to look inside a current F1 engine. I imagine the number of people that actually know from first person experience how they are built is very limited.
When you talk about failures I agree totally with you as far as primary componet failure. Even at 5-6,000 rpm a broken con rod or spun bearing turns the engine to junk. Where I was questioning is the large number of "failures" that only result in the engine being a little off. Leaking head gaskets. Valves that do not completely seal. Holed pistons (sometimes) only result in huge clouds of smoke and power loss with little physical damage. Cracked cylinder heads, etc.
Then the question gets back to what is the function of racing. I personally do not ascribe to the idea that F1 should be the domain of technology that is so exotic that it will never see transfer to production cars in my life time. I much prefer formulas that mandate engines that derive directly from production engines. The development curve changes because you evolve from a production design to a racing design, instead of from the abstract ideal back to production. In my humble opinion this provides more real world useful information to both the consumer and the engineer.
Of course the same could be said of the WRC cars being even remotely connected to the showroom cars. Only in the most abstract sense is my WRX similar to the works WRC cars. At least they retain the basic drive train, engine block and suspension package. As a result the production car is a much better package but ---- when you are only retaining 10% of the original platform it is something of a stretch to think you drove a race car off the dealers show room floor.
If I had my way NASCAR would return to a formula that built off production chassis and running gear but alas I guess that era is gone.
Larry
| callawayv | 03-21-2002 07:05 PM |
What would be a good way to limit costs? I understand the 1 engine, that's rediculous, it will cost WAY more! Once the devolpement is done, the number of engines is relatively insignificant. One engine in F-1? You know how much research and testing that would take for one of those to do that?
There must be a better way to limit the costs. I think one way to start with would be to audit the system. The demands F-1 puts on it's race holders and teams I think are wayyyy out of line. The cost to put on the race is outrageous.
That's my opinion, it's free, take it for what it's worth!
:lol:
Any ideas?
:confused:
Ah yes, when NASCAR ran actual cars.....Daytonas, Superbirds,Cyclones, Taledegas..... Can you imagine a bunch of front wheel driven 6 cylinder 4 dr sedans racing around the track?:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Haven't I heard that the powers that be in F-1 are even developing magnetic valve systems?
By the way those Rover/Buick V-8s are awesome. My brother had a Defender 90 with one.
There must be a better way to limit the costs. I think one way to start with would be to audit the system. The demands F-1 puts on it's race holders and teams I think are wayyyy out of line. The cost to put on the race is outrageous.
That's my opinion, it's free, take it for what it's worth!
:lol:
Any ideas?
:confused:
Ah yes, when NASCAR ran actual cars.....Daytonas, Superbirds,Cyclones, Taledegas..... Can you imagine a bunch of front wheel driven 6 cylinder 4 dr sedans racing around the track?:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Haven't I heard that the powers that be in F-1 are even developing magnetic valve systems?
By the way those Rover/Buick V-8s are awesome. My brother had a Defender 90 with one.
| johnfelstead | 03-21-2002 09:35 PM |
Point taken about the ;) Surprised pat didnt suss that though, he knows i have a crazy brit sense of humour/stylee. ;)
Just to make this pretier, here are some pics on what i helped develop.
Dyno plot for the MGX engine, twin turbo Rover V8, 4.8 Litre.
Comp Ratio = 7.6:1 Boost 16 PSI
Fuel = Super Unleaded
Zytec Fuel Injection = Full
Management System
Wildcat Stage 2 Cylinder Head and cylinder block etc
The most powerful Rover/Wildcat engine in its type.
[IMG]http://www.roverv8engine.co.uk/Graph2ar.gif[/IMG]
TVR Tuscan 4.8 Litres
Comp Ratio = 13.8:1
Fuel = AVGAS
Wildcat Stage 2 Cylinder heads
Motec Fuel Injection and Management System
[IMG]http://www.roverv8engine.co.uk/Graph1ar.gif[/IMG]
Triumph TR8 (ex Works) 5.0 Litre
Comp Ratio =11.5:1
Fuel=Super Unleaded
Carbs = 4 x 48 Dellorto
RACMSA Class Winner 1998
3rd Overall - Sprint Leaders
8 Wins 5 Class Records
[IMG]http://www.roverv8engine.co.uk/Graph3ar.gif[/IMG]
and this is the web site for the company of my friend, Ian Richardson. Ian used to race a Can Am McLaren and built the engines that were in the Gulf GT40's that won at LeMans, very smart engineer. [url]http://www.roverv8engine.co.uk/index2.htm[/url]
Off to bed, when i get back from spain i'll post some piccies of the internals of an F1 engine, got them here somewhere.
Just to make this pretier, here are some pics on what i helped develop.
Dyno plot for the MGX engine, twin turbo Rover V8, 4.8 Litre.
Comp Ratio = 7.6:1 Boost 16 PSI
Fuel = Super Unleaded
Zytec Fuel Injection = Full
Management System
Wildcat Stage 2 Cylinder Head and cylinder block etc
The most powerful Rover/Wildcat engine in its type.
[IMG]http://www.roverv8engine.co.uk/Graph2ar.gif[/IMG]
TVR Tuscan 4.8 Litres
Comp Ratio = 13.8:1
Fuel = AVGAS
Wildcat Stage 2 Cylinder heads
Motec Fuel Injection and Management System
[IMG]http://www.roverv8engine.co.uk/Graph1ar.gif[/IMG]
Triumph TR8 (ex Works) 5.0 Litre
Comp Ratio =11.5:1
Fuel=Super Unleaded
Carbs = 4 x 48 Dellorto
RACMSA Class Winner 1998
3rd Overall - Sprint Leaders
8 Wins 5 Class Records
[IMG]http://www.roverv8engine.co.uk/Graph3ar.gif[/IMG]
and this is the web site for the company of my friend, Ian Richardson. Ian used to race a Can Am McLaren and built the engines that were in the Gulf GT40's that won at LeMans, very smart engineer. [url]http://www.roverv8engine.co.uk/index2.htm[/url]
Off to bed, when i get back from spain i'll post some piccies of the internals of an F1 engine, got them here somewhere.
| hotrod | 03-21-2002 10:23 PM |
Nice dyno plots -- you done good
Nice dyno plots thats a very healthy engine.
I'd love to see some images on current F1 engine layout. Can't wait to see how you keep a full sized engine together at 19k rpm.
Larry
I'd love to see some images on current F1 engine layout. Can't wait to see how you keep a full sized engine together at 19k rpm.
Larry
| hotrod | 03-21-2002 10:40 PM |
Another option
One way to reduce costs is to set up classifications like CART and the Indy folks have used from time to time. Have two engine classifications, a production based engine and a purpose built classification with some equalizing factor like displacement or fuel capacity to keep it competetive. This would allow teams that are only filthy rich to afford to field a chassis with out having to buy gold plated engines. Sure a spin off of a production block is very expensive like the engines based on the Aurora engine but it is still cheaper than building a no holds barred engine that starts as a blank sheet of paper.
From a spectators point of view I see little difference between F1 and Formula 5000 or CART/INDY league.
Larry
From a spectators point of view I see little difference between F1 and Formula 5000 or CART/INDY league.
Larry
| Travis R | 03-22-2002 09:03 AM |
Re: shop building vs fixing in the pits
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by hotrod [/i]
[B]... so if the F1 folks can't put new pistons or new cylinder heads in an engine over night between qualification and race day there is either something wrong with the design of the car or the highly paid mechanics.
....
As far as being part of the chassis is concerned, that actually makes it easier. Pop a half a dozen fasteners and the engine is out on the floor where you can work on it, you don't have to try to work around a spider web of tubing, or stressed chassis elements.
....
The only significant difference between the engines is in valve actuation, so what makes the F1 engine so difficult to repair/rebuild ?
Larry [/B][/QUOTE]
Using the engine as a stressed member usually means you have to disassemble the entire back half of the car to get the engine out, suspension and everything. And like John already said there is a big difference between 8000rpm and 19000rpm. At those speeds and forces everything has to be perfect. Virtually any imperfection will result in the engine turning to shreds. So to replace an engine on a race weekend would be insanely difficult. The team would probably just take the 10 place hit, and go to the backup car, just like they do now.
-----------
"Formula 1 should be the pinnacle of motor racing. It should have the minimum of parameters controlling performance. There are only four parameters which control a racing car; one is the power from the engine; the second is the aerodynamical download it can produce; the third is the amount of grip which can be obtained by the tyres and the fourth is the weight."
Colin Chapman
-----------
[B]... so if the F1 folks can't put new pistons or new cylinder heads in an engine over night between qualification and race day there is either something wrong with the design of the car or the highly paid mechanics.
....
As far as being part of the chassis is concerned, that actually makes it easier. Pop a half a dozen fasteners and the engine is out on the floor where you can work on it, you don't have to try to work around a spider web of tubing, or stressed chassis elements.
....
The only significant difference between the engines is in valve actuation, so what makes the F1 engine so difficult to repair/rebuild ?
Larry [/B][/QUOTE]
Using the engine as a stressed member usually means you have to disassemble the entire back half of the car to get the engine out, suspension and everything. And like John already said there is a big difference between 8000rpm and 19000rpm. At those speeds and forces everything has to be perfect. Virtually any imperfection will result in the engine turning to shreds. So to replace an engine on a race weekend would be insanely difficult. The team would probably just take the 10 place hit, and go to the backup car, just like they do now.
-----------
"Formula 1 should be the pinnacle of motor racing. It should have the minimum of parameters controlling performance. There are only four parameters which control a racing car; one is the power from the engine; the second is the aerodynamical download it can produce; the third is the amount of grip which can be obtained by the tyres and the fourth is the weight."
Colin Chapman
-----------
| Surly | 03-22-2002 05:25 PM |
I don't get it come someone explain
Maybe some of you guys who follow F1 more closely than I do can help me answer a few questions.
Why does F1 keep passing rules that most people think are bad ideas? Now it's the one engine before it was the grooved tires, most of the drivers were against it, most of the media thought it was a bad idea.
Is it a democratic vote? Each team one vote, majority wins.
This point was touched on earlier, but what happens if a driver crashes a car in practice or qualifying does he automatically get bumped to the back? If he doesn't wouldn't there then be an incentive to crash a car if you suspect there to be an engine problem?
Whatever they do I just hope it's going to make for tighter racing.
Although if the coverage is like it was in Malayasia, it doesn't matter we won't get to see it anyway.
Why does F1 keep passing rules that most people think are bad ideas? Now it's the one engine before it was the grooved tires, most of the drivers were against it, most of the media thought it was a bad idea.
Is it a democratic vote? Each team one vote, majority wins.
This point was touched on earlier, but what happens if a driver crashes a car in practice or qualifying does he automatically get bumped to the back? If he doesn't wouldn't there then be an incentive to crash a car if you suspect there to be an engine problem?
Whatever they do I just hope it's going to make for tighter racing.
Although if the coverage is like it was in Malayasia, it doesn't matter we won't get to see it anyway.
| Zahnster | 03-22-2002 06:15 PM |
F1 has numerous rules that are generally considered bad ideas.
Like the fact that every car looks pretty much identical since the rules all but say make it look like the other guys car.
Like the fact that every car looks pretty much identical since the rules all but say make it look like the other guys car.
| Gozzi | 03-23-2002 08:22 AM |
question
When Michael has qualified first but breaks his engine, and Rubens has qualified second, can Michael take Rubins car and end up starting first while Rubins gets the spare car and starts in 10th place?
| I ROBOT | 03-24-2002 07:54 PM |
I {heart} John Felstead ;)
His big toe knows more about cars than I do... :(
His big toe knows more about cars than I do... :(
| Dr. WOT | 03-25-2002 12:03 PM |
Re: question
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Gozzi [/i]
[B]When Michael has qualified first but breaks his engine, and Rubens has qualified second, can Michael take Rubins car and end up starting first while Rubins gets the spare car and starts in 10th place? [/B][/QUOTE]
No, in F1 the driver qualifies for the position, not the car.
--------
My $0.02:
I'm not as against this engine rule as most of you. The costs are out of control and with the tobacco ban looming in the near future, F1 is in for a dose of reality that it's not ready for.
Precautionary motor changes are standard-- the top teams don't wait for a engine to blow... they replace it regardless. Contrary to what Steve Machet says, using 9 motors at each GP instead of 2 or 3 will make a huge difference over the course of a 16+ race season. Building 100+ additional motors costs money, believe that.
I don't see it making much difference in development costs. Let's be honest... does anyone think BMW, Toyota or Ferrari are using ANY restraint in R&D costs at the present moment? The rule goes into effect in 04 which gives them 2 full generations of development in which to meet what is really just a different technical requirement. On the upside, the rule will ultimately yield better and more useful technology to filter down to road cars.
So I agree with the need to cut costs, and limiting the number of engines is a good place to trim some of the fat. However I don't like the FIA's method for the penalizing the teams.
The "10 cars back on the grid" penalty won't help the lesser teams into a win. As we have seen countless times, the top cars have no problem carving back through the field-- Sepang is a perfect example. JPM finished 2nd, MS 3rd, despite both of then going all they way back. Sure, it will be great to see MS pass a bunch of slower cars for position, but he's still going to pass them and will still end up on the podium. So the effect of the penalty is nullified.
Instead the rule will hurt the action. The penalized driver could have been fighting it out for the lead, or playing the pit-stop/race strategy chess game, but was too busy working his way up to 2nd or 3rd place, meanwhile his main competitor drove a completely uncontested race out front, yawn.
The rule about the crashes is a complete JOKE. Race stewards cannot be noted for their good judgment or their lack of bias. Giving them the power to influence the next race is outrageous. Again using Malaysia as an example, under the new rule JPM could have gotten a 10 position penalty for Brazil, when he didn't even deserve the drive through. Nobody wants to crash out and end their weekend in the first corner, so adding this incentive will not effect the number of first corner accidents, and will only hurt the on track action. Let's hope this rule is used sparingly and only in blatant circumstances.
Sorry about the long post :p
[B]When Michael has qualified first but breaks his engine, and Rubens has qualified second, can Michael take Rubins car and end up starting first while Rubins gets the spare car and starts in 10th place? [/B][/QUOTE]
No, in F1 the driver qualifies for the position, not the car.
--------
My $0.02:
I'm not as against this engine rule as most of you. The costs are out of control and with the tobacco ban looming in the near future, F1 is in for a dose of reality that it's not ready for.
Precautionary motor changes are standard-- the top teams don't wait for a engine to blow... they replace it regardless. Contrary to what Steve Machet says, using 9 motors at each GP instead of 2 or 3 will make a huge difference over the course of a 16+ race season. Building 100+ additional motors costs money, believe that.
I don't see it making much difference in development costs. Let's be honest... does anyone think BMW, Toyota or Ferrari are using ANY restraint in R&D costs at the present moment? The rule goes into effect in 04 which gives them 2 full generations of development in which to meet what is really just a different technical requirement. On the upside, the rule will ultimately yield better and more useful technology to filter down to road cars.
So I agree with the need to cut costs, and limiting the number of engines is a good place to trim some of the fat. However I don't like the FIA's method for the penalizing the teams.
The "10 cars back on the grid" penalty won't help the lesser teams into a win. As we have seen countless times, the top cars have no problem carving back through the field-- Sepang is a perfect example. JPM finished 2nd, MS 3rd, despite both of then going all they way back. Sure, it will be great to see MS pass a bunch of slower cars for position, but he's still going to pass them and will still end up on the podium. So the effect of the penalty is nullified.
Instead the rule will hurt the action. The penalized driver could have been fighting it out for the lead, or playing the pit-stop/race strategy chess game, but was too busy working his way up to 2nd or 3rd place, meanwhile his main competitor drove a completely uncontested race out front, yawn.
The rule about the crashes is a complete JOKE. Race stewards cannot be noted for their good judgment or their lack of bias. Giving them the power to influence the next race is outrageous. Again using Malaysia as an example, under the new rule JPM could have gotten a 10 position penalty for Brazil, when he didn't even deserve the drive through. Nobody wants to crash out and end their weekend in the first corner, so adding this incentive will not effect the number of first corner accidents, and will only hurt the on track action. Let's hope this rule is used sparingly and only in blatant circumstances.
Sorry about the long post :p
| SCRAPPYDO | 03-25-2002 12:08 PM |
F1 engines and NASCAR engines are not essentially the same. Neither is the type of racing they must endure.
An F1 engine has over 5000 parts. Pneumatically operated valve train and is built with no gaskets to speak of. Its machine tolerances are space flight quality or better. It's a continuously changing and morphing creature that is mutated not only from season to season, but from race to race to constantly improve its performance across the entire RPM band. That brings up another cost issue. F1 engines are not built before the season and then its done until next season. It changes as the season goes on. The BMW engine in Australia will be a different creature than the BMW engine in Japan this year. Fuel maps will change, valve and cylinder head design will be modified. Probably most parts of the engine will be tweaked and retested rigorously. And who do you suppose will have the funds to do this. Only the larger teams. This will increase the gap and make competitive racing amongst the grid an impossibility the longer the season goes. More changes, more power with more desired reliability will always equal vastly more money.
I am not an expert at NASCAR. Nor do I have any desire to be. But I know enough to either make an intelligent and informative comment or make a total weenie of myself! J I have built and rebuilt enough V8's to know what it takes to make one last and to understand what's going on inside one. The standard NASCAR engine is a mule. It is still basically the same engine that my 78 Z28 had. Sure the cylinder head is a different angle, and its not a bolt on part, but it still has 2 valves per cylinder, pushrods, a single cam, and one modified Holley carb with a single distributor. Granted it's a different block, but for the most part its still apples to apples as its been for 20 to 30 years. Sure it has a dry sump oil system now and a few other "fancy" differences. But its far from being an exotic engine. The equation has not changed.
Formula 1 has always been a showcase of automotive technology. It's a place where the engineers are racing against each other as hard as the drivers. It is a place where a car company can really have the spotlight on it and say "look what I can do". I don't care about the costs of F1. I like the ultra elite status it has. Its not for everyone. Its not for the common man. It should not be affordable to all who want to try. It's the pinnacle of motor sports. A place where pure engineering passion collides with raw gut filled courage at 180 miles per hour. I don't want F1 to be Ruled to death. I don't want F1 to be Americanized and white washed to attract the American audience because they like fender to fender racing. It should be left the way it is, pure and clean.
And, as God as my witness, if I ever hear Ferrari, BMW, and McLeran are "3 Wide" going into turn 2, I will swear off F1 forever and start collecting commemorative plate sets with the Legends of NASCAR on them……
<shudder>
SCRAPPYDO
stephen
An F1 engine has over 5000 parts. Pneumatically operated valve train and is built with no gaskets to speak of. Its machine tolerances are space flight quality or better. It's a continuously changing and morphing creature that is mutated not only from season to season, but from race to race to constantly improve its performance across the entire RPM band. That brings up another cost issue. F1 engines are not built before the season and then its done until next season. It changes as the season goes on. The BMW engine in Australia will be a different creature than the BMW engine in Japan this year. Fuel maps will change, valve and cylinder head design will be modified. Probably most parts of the engine will be tweaked and retested rigorously. And who do you suppose will have the funds to do this. Only the larger teams. This will increase the gap and make competitive racing amongst the grid an impossibility the longer the season goes. More changes, more power with more desired reliability will always equal vastly more money.
I am not an expert at NASCAR. Nor do I have any desire to be. But I know enough to either make an intelligent and informative comment or make a total weenie of myself! J I have built and rebuilt enough V8's to know what it takes to make one last and to understand what's going on inside one. The standard NASCAR engine is a mule. It is still basically the same engine that my 78 Z28 had. Sure the cylinder head is a different angle, and its not a bolt on part, but it still has 2 valves per cylinder, pushrods, a single cam, and one modified Holley carb with a single distributor. Granted it's a different block, but for the most part its still apples to apples as its been for 20 to 30 years. Sure it has a dry sump oil system now and a few other "fancy" differences. But its far from being an exotic engine. The equation has not changed.
Formula 1 has always been a showcase of automotive technology. It's a place where the engineers are racing against each other as hard as the drivers. It is a place where a car company can really have the spotlight on it and say "look what I can do". I don't care about the costs of F1. I like the ultra elite status it has. Its not for everyone. Its not for the common man. It should not be affordable to all who want to try. It's the pinnacle of motor sports. A place where pure engineering passion collides with raw gut filled courage at 180 miles per hour. I don't want F1 to be Ruled to death. I don't want F1 to be Americanized and white washed to attract the American audience because they like fender to fender racing. It should be left the way it is, pure and clean.
And, as God as my witness, if I ever hear Ferrari, BMW, and McLeran are "3 Wide" going into turn 2, I will swear off F1 forever and start collecting commemorative plate sets with the Legends of NASCAR on them……
<shudder>
SCRAPPYDO
stephen
| hotrod | 03-25-2002 02:46 PM |
still got pistons and con rods
Scrappydo
Thanks for confirming my earlier post that the only significant difference between F1 engines and other race engines is the valve train actuation method.
All high output race engines have high piece counts, most all are carefully designed to minimize gasket surfaces. The OFFY engine that dominated championship/ Indy racing for 40 years was 1930's technology and was a bottom bored engine to eliminate the head gasket. The Ford Indy engine had major problems controlling oil leaks and went through the same design process to stiffen it and inprove gasket sealing. All race engines are built to aerospace standards for cleanliness and fit and finish, and have been for nearly a hundred years. In many cases being the prototypes for production aircraft design techniques.
All major race engines except for the possible exception of spec racer classes evolve and change from race to race and are not fixed comodities that stay the same through out the year. To do otherwise in ANY racing class would assure also ran status at the end of the year.
The simple fact that the article referenced in the beginning of this thread mentions the concern on the organizers part that the teams would rebuild the engines in the pits, tells me that it is not only possible, but nearly a gurantee that such building will take place.
This is not a NASCAR vs F1 debate, rather I mentioned NASCAR in the context that they have already imposed the one engine rule for exactly the same reason as the F1 folks so their success should serve as a barometer of how successful it will be in F1.
IN the final analysis the primary issue in F1 engine design today is not the mechanical designs as they are fairly straight forward evolutions of what preceeded them, but in the areas of materials science. High performance engines have been able to exceed the strength of materials for decades.
Ceramics, titanium, boron carbid fiber, carbon fiber composits, etc. I would not be surprised if some of the F1 teams are using single crystal componets for connecting rods much like jet engines do for turbine blades. That cost tons of money. For an example a set of carbon carbon disk rotors and pads all around for a Sebring LM900 car costs $12,000 + and this is off the shelf technology.
To paraphrase an old American Congressman, " a million here a million there pretty soon your talking about real money"
Larry
Thanks for confirming my earlier post that the only significant difference between F1 engines and other race engines is the valve train actuation method.
All high output race engines have high piece counts, most all are carefully designed to minimize gasket surfaces. The OFFY engine that dominated championship/ Indy racing for 40 years was 1930's technology and was a bottom bored engine to eliminate the head gasket. The Ford Indy engine had major problems controlling oil leaks and went through the same design process to stiffen it and inprove gasket sealing. All race engines are built to aerospace standards for cleanliness and fit and finish, and have been for nearly a hundred years. In many cases being the prototypes for production aircraft design techniques.
All major race engines except for the possible exception of spec racer classes evolve and change from race to race and are not fixed comodities that stay the same through out the year. To do otherwise in ANY racing class would assure also ran status at the end of the year.
The simple fact that the article referenced in the beginning of this thread mentions the concern on the organizers part that the teams would rebuild the engines in the pits, tells me that it is not only possible, but nearly a gurantee that such building will take place.
This is not a NASCAR vs F1 debate, rather I mentioned NASCAR in the context that they have already imposed the one engine rule for exactly the same reason as the F1 folks so their success should serve as a barometer of how successful it will be in F1.
IN the final analysis the primary issue in F1 engine design today is not the mechanical designs as they are fairly straight forward evolutions of what preceeded them, but in the areas of materials science. High performance engines have been able to exceed the strength of materials for decades.
Ceramics, titanium, boron carbid fiber, carbon fiber composits, etc. I would not be surprised if some of the F1 teams are using single crystal componets for connecting rods much like jet engines do for turbine blades. That cost tons of money. For an example a set of carbon carbon disk rotors and pads all around for a Sebring LM900 car costs $12,000 + and this is off the shelf technology.
To paraphrase an old American Congressman, " a million here a million there pretty soon your talking about real money"
Larry
| SCRAPPYDO | 03-25-2002 04:14 PM |
This was never meant to be a NASCAR vs F1 debate. The two sports are so vastly different in thier regulations, venues, and sophistication that a direct comparison (outside of a vehicle with an engine and 4 wheels that races on asphault) is not very useful.
I do still belive that forcing the factory to recreate the engine to last an entire weekend will set prices into orbit. RPM and power are easy. Longevity is easy. Both together are extremely hard. Mr. feldstead is correct in saying it will fundamentally change the entire sport of F1. 10+ years of car building and tweaking are out the window as an entirely new car will have to be designed. You dont simply pull a modern day F1 engine out and rebuild it in between practice sessions or qualifying. They are assembled in clean room conditions, not in hours but days or weeks. To make the engine rebuildable would require an a new evolution of motor. You will introduce compromises, and shortcuts that may prevent you from making the most power possible. In F1 you may as well slit your own throat. It will require oceans of research and development that 75% of the teams in F1 simply are not even close to having. This rule will cripple F1. I can see races with only 5 or fewer cars finishing.
I can see starting grids devoid of a full feild. F1 engines are like salmon. They live hard and die young.
Here is a what-if for ya...
All the teams say screw the rule and replace engines anyway. They all take a 10 grid position penalty, and the race will start with the first 10 places on the grid empty:D :D . I can see that as a real reality if this rule gets the go ahead.
QUOTE: Juan Montoya takes the pole of the German Grand Prix and will start on the inside of row 10!...:lol:
As for an F1 engine being different than a NASCAR engine or any other different engine out there...
Well this can get ugly really fast with people on both sides spouting off all the technical aspects of each engine trying to flex their muscle to see who has the larger supply of automotive IQ at there disposal. So to help put it to bed I will concede that YES, and F1 engine does have a crankshaft. And yes, a F1 engine does have pistons and connecting rods, and oh yeah, a block of sorts. This has been true since the inception of the internal combustion engine. But to dismiss the technological advances in design that F1 has made is like saying a Piper Cub is essentially the same as the F-22 Rapter. After all, both have wings and engines, and use the same principles of flight.
Not that I am saying F1 is a Rapter and NASCAR is a Piper Cub (its not quite that drastic, well..),but the disparity in technology is huge.
carb vs programable EFI
V8 vs V10
Single Camshaft vs no Camshaft
Pushrods vs pneumatic acuation (unless Renault have figured out that magnetic valve actuation system?)
8200 RPM vs 19500 RPM (not really sure about the redline on modern day NASCAR engines. They were turning about 8 grand 15 years ago when I was watching a race or two)
okay I will get off of my "this versus that" podium. Its not very constructive.
Other than that, I anxiously await what the teams say about this rule. I dont look for it to float!
SCRAPPYDO
stephen
I do still belive that forcing the factory to recreate the engine to last an entire weekend will set prices into orbit. RPM and power are easy. Longevity is easy. Both together are extremely hard. Mr. feldstead is correct in saying it will fundamentally change the entire sport of F1. 10+ years of car building and tweaking are out the window as an entirely new car will have to be designed. You dont simply pull a modern day F1 engine out and rebuild it in between practice sessions or qualifying. They are assembled in clean room conditions, not in hours but days or weeks. To make the engine rebuildable would require an a new evolution of motor. You will introduce compromises, and shortcuts that may prevent you from making the most power possible. In F1 you may as well slit your own throat. It will require oceans of research and development that 75% of the teams in F1 simply are not even close to having. This rule will cripple F1. I can see races with only 5 or fewer cars finishing.
I can see starting grids devoid of a full feild. F1 engines are like salmon. They live hard and die young.
Here is a what-if for ya...
All the teams say screw the rule and replace engines anyway. They all take a 10 grid position penalty, and the race will start with the first 10 places on the grid empty:D :D . I can see that as a real reality if this rule gets the go ahead.
QUOTE: Juan Montoya takes the pole of the German Grand Prix and will start on the inside of row 10!...:lol:
As for an F1 engine being different than a NASCAR engine or any other different engine out there...
Well this can get ugly really fast with people on both sides spouting off all the technical aspects of each engine trying to flex their muscle to see who has the larger supply of automotive IQ at there disposal. So to help put it to bed I will concede that YES, and F1 engine does have a crankshaft. And yes, a F1 engine does have pistons and connecting rods, and oh yeah, a block of sorts. This has been true since the inception of the internal combustion engine. But to dismiss the technological advances in design that F1 has made is like saying a Piper Cub is essentially the same as the F-22 Rapter. After all, both have wings and engines, and use the same principles of flight.
Not that I am saying F1 is a Rapter and NASCAR is a Piper Cub (its not quite that drastic, well..),but the disparity in technology is huge.
carb vs programable EFI
V8 vs V10
Single Camshaft vs no Camshaft
Pushrods vs pneumatic acuation (unless Renault have figured out that magnetic valve actuation system?)
8200 RPM vs 19500 RPM (not really sure about the redline on modern day NASCAR engines. They were turning about 8 grand 15 years ago when I was watching a race or two)
okay I will get off of my "this versus that" podium. Its not very constructive.
Other than that, I anxiously await what the teams say about this rule. I dont look for it to float!
SCRAPPYDO
stephen
| hotrod | 03-25-2002 04:46 PM |
proof of the pudding is how they try to work the rules
I agree totally that the real test will be to see what the unintended consequences are for this new rule. As in all racing, the organizers frequently open big holes to creative teams when they start tweaking the rules.
If this rule forces the teams to do what was intended and run the engines for the whole period of the race weekend, I think we will see some interesting results as the teams try to solve the HP vs reliability equation.
The issue of "if the rule is good" is more a religious issue rather than a factual issue.
I personally do not ascribe to the idea that F1 should be the ultimate in racing technology without any limits. I see no point in pursuing technology that has no applicability to day to day usage.
Case in point carbon carbon brakes. They are very good and have done wonders for race performance, but due to both economics and practical problems like operational temperature requirements, will never see life on a production car. Some drivers have also said they feel they have destroyed many aspects of overtaking on braking because the braking zone is so short as to make a pass on braking essentially impossible on many circuits.
Someone may accomplish both the performace and the production capability with ceramic rotors or other technology. Unfortunately under todays rules there is no major incentive to persue other avenues. Although I understand (I think) it is Porche that is working on ceramic brakes.
I think it will be good if the teams have to confront the issue of reliability rather then just throwing a check book at the problem and building a new engine. That is why I much prefer races like Le Mans than F1. It is to my mind far more relevent.
I also do not like rules that are not performace based. For example given my earlier statements on carbon brakes I would oppose rules that outlawed carbon brakes specifically. Rather I would prefer rules that are performace based. ie you cannot use a brake system that has no production equivalent or you suffer some sort of penalty if your brake system is not based on a prduction system. Same with the engine rule, I would much prefer a rule system that pitted production based engines against the one off purpose built engines.
Just my view.
Larry
If this rule forces the teams to do what was intended and run the engines for the whole period of the race weekend, I think we will see some interesting results as the teams try to solve the HP vs reliability equation.
The issue of "if the rule is good" is more a religious issue rather than a factual issue.
I personally do not ascribe to the idea that F1 should be the ultimate in racing technology without any limits. I see no point in pursuing technology that has no applicability to day to day usage.
Case in point carbon carbon brakes. They are very good and have done wonders for race performance, but due to both economics and practical problems like operational temperature requirements, will never see life on a production car. Some drivers have also said they feel they have destroyed many aspects of overtaking on braking because the braking zone is so short as to make a pass on braking essentially impossible on many circuits.
Someone may accomplish both the performace and the production capability with ceramic rotors or other technology. Unfortunately under todays rules there is no major incentive to persue other avenues. Although I understand (I think) it is Porche that is working on ceramic brakes.
I think it will be good if the teams have to confront the issue of reliability rather then just throwing a check book at the problem and building a new engine. That is why I much prefer races like Le Mans than F1. It is to my mind far more relevent.
I also do not like rules that are not performace based. For example given my earlier statements on carbon brakes I would oppose rules that outlawed carbon brakes specifically. Rather I would prefer rules that are performace based. ie you cannot use a brake system that has no production equivalent or you suffer some sort of penalty if your brake system is not based on a prduction system. Same with the engine rule, I would much prefer a rule system that pitted production based engines against the one off purpose built engines.
Just my view.
Larry
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét