Return Of The Mighty V-10?

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.
Post Reply
Agenda_Is_Incorrect
-5
Joined: 12 Jun 2010, 00:07

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

Andres125sx wrote: I know nothing about engines, but you just need to compare some production engines data to realice how efficient turbo engines are, they provide more torque from very low rpm, they´re lighter, and they´re more efficient. I see no reason to continue using atmospheric engines, specially when old turbo problems (lag, reliability) are solved
That's precisely what the new formula appeals for: people who are specsheet readers and are basically engineering hipsters. When you can't be bothered to actually learn a subject and will take propaganda to top level consequences, such as screwing a whole sport, why not stop pretending and letting people who actually know their stuff to continue a good job?

The new turbo engines are more green and more cool and more and more and more... They are the old you need more approach as usual. Except that when you put "green" on it, that makes people feel it's ok to be misinformed and an over-consumer and your old-stile neighbour with an older car needs to be arrested for being some kind of green-ofobic. Where are the laws to ban these people, right?

The new turbo engines are used in less than 5% of the cars around the world and that will continue to be the situation as NORMAL, actually lighter and more efficient OVERALL engines keep proving the better choice as ever.

Tubo downsized engines are an European approach to the lack of good European HIGH POWER (again, high power) combustion engines. Europe has weird laws based on fetishism for egalitarian measures and pure engineering prejudice, like over taxing engines bigger than 2.0 liters of displacement instead of putting a restriction on consumption.

As a result, European manufacturers have had no good V6 and V8 engines for a long time. AND - that's an important and - they have so much scale on small, sub-2.0 liters, 4 cilinders engines as a result of an obsession of low consumption and not looking like Americans (lol :lol: ) that it's just better FOR THEM to have their HIGH POWER engine options based on the same 4 cilinders they use on normal to low power options - you just bolt on the turbo on them.

When you consider a PACKAGE (a car is a package, that's why a Prius will spend MORE fuel than many more powerful, non hybrids - inspite the very efficient engine), the 4 cylinder turbo is not often the best choice. That's the reason Japanese manufacturers have took so long to adopt the downsizing route of turbo + small 4 cilinders. AND - another important and - they will only adopt it on... POWERFUL engine options.

Look at the new VTEC range. 1.6 Turbo as the new 200+ horse power engine, replacing the old aspirated version. All the rest are small (1.2 to 1.5 liter) aspirated and very conventional engines combined with valve variation and an efficient PACKAGE. That is, a package as light and compact as possible with an engine efficient enough - and you can't do that often with a heavier, more complex, much more space-consuming (look at an intercooler system and a nice V6 becomes not that big/heavy) turbo-charged engine.

That's the reason Ron Dennis said some months ago that the fastest formula would be... Light, powerful V10s! When you remove big minimum weight rules and other gimmicky made so that the current formula actually works, the OVERALL BEST PACKAGE is the light, compact (no batteries, no generators), efficient ENOUGH aspirated high powered engine.

When you have an engineering sense, you know that things are supposed to have a clear objective. The closest you are from it, the more OVERALL efficient you are. You can desing a combustion engine with 50% or more fuel efficiency for F1, but if it weights and takes 3 times more space than an "outdated" 40-45% fuel efficient one, you have an LESS efficient car overall.

A car less efficient overall is a car that will be slower, use more resources to build and keep (offsetting the gains on solo-engine efficiency) and will need artificial rules to be competitive. Sounds like the current formula and the current European obsession on downsized, turbo 4 cylinders.

A turbo is generally HEAVYER and uses MORE fuel than the same engine while naturally aspirated. In fact, a naturally aspired engine can be around 50% bigger in displacement and still be LIGHTER and more economical than a turbo engine. Diesels are a different story, though...

They are NOTHING what you said. The manufacturers know that and install them on SELECTED cars where the balance of the package works out and makes sense. And they will force that and make worse cars efficiency-wise as marketing and scale requires, as well. That's the key thing.

Small downsized turbos, like 1 liter/3 cylinder turbos, are only good to escape laws against bigger displacements that many countries have. A good 1.4 naturally aspirated engine will be smaller on the overall package, just as light and more reliable (near same low-regime response as well) and just as economical.

Do the math's: the same fuel economy with less components, more overall efficiency and cheaper on the long run. That's better for the car maker, the owner AND - another time - to nature.

Mid-sizes downsized turbos, like 1.4 to 2.0 liter/4 cylinder engines, are good to compact sports cars that can't use a 6 cylinders because of the space required. They use MORE fuel than a diesel or a good naturally aspired engine of the same size. Plus heavier, more complex and with higher maintenance cost over time. But they can offer more performance on a smaller size than a 6 cylinder engine.

That's what BMW does, for instance.

A bigger displacement 4 cylinder, such as an 2.4 liter engine, could match those numbers and still be cheaper and overall more efficient. That's where law restrictions, made by people who "seem to know" (like you), interfere. Let's not forget scaling issues, though. The manufacturers can save more by having the same 1.6 liter 4 cylinder in several configurations than making a special 2.4 or even 2.0 liter engine for the sport model options. That's ok as scale economy is actually a good thing for the environment.

Big "downsized" turbos, like 3 liters / 6 cylinder, are good for performance only. The overall package is better than a V12 or V10, for instance (Nissan GTR just screamed on my mind now :wink: ). Might not be better overall than a compact V8, though. Fuel savings compared to a V12 will be obvious, but look at where you had to arrive so that you had a clear victory...

On all the other applications, which are over 80% of the cases for sure, either a traditional naturally aspired engine will be better overall - even on fuel consumption - or a nice diesel will blow the sh*t out of the OMG SO GREEN COOL TECHY F1 ENGINE OMG.

The history is the same for hybrids. End of it.
I've been censored by a moderation team that rather see people dying and being shot at terrorist attacks than allowing people to speak the truth. That's racist apparently.

God made Trump win for a reason.

Pingguest
3
Joined: 28 Dec 2008, 16:31

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

toraabe wrote:I just don't understand why we should go back 20 years to v12 or v10 ?. That's how it was in the past. Those engines are obsolete and lasted one weekend. I think even a turbocharged V4 ( like porsche ) as a stressed member will work. When it comes to how race cars sound like, this is my favorite.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUjaJuAbdkw
Prior the introduction of the post-qualifying parc fermé engines even lasted no more than one qualifying session.
8)

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 10:15
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

Agenda, I´ll reply you later as I don´t have the time now, too much bs, now I´lll only reply this:
Agenda_Is_Incorrect wrote:That's precisely what the new formula appeals for: people who are specsheet readers and are basically engineering hipsters. When you can't be bothered to actually learn a subject and will take propaganda to top level consequences, such as screwing a whole sport, why not stop pretending and letting people who actually know their stuff to continue a good job?

The new turbo engines are more green and more cool and more and more and more... They are the old you need more approach as usual. Except that when you put "green" on it, that makes people feel it's ok to be misinformed and an over-consumer and your old-stile neighbour with an older car needs to be arrested for being some kind of green-ofobic. Where are the laws to ban these people, right?
First, I see you are the one who know what´s better. FIA, manufacturers... they know nothing, they should have ask you before switching to V6 turbos.... :lol:

Second, did you read "green" somewhere in this thread? Or you´re one of those so obsessed with old technology you assume anyone who disagree with you is an ignorant who only follow the green trend?

Oh and finally, ask Ron Dennis if a V10 would be more efficient (according to your own definition) than a 1989 1.5 turbo engine providing 1300hp for qualifying and more than 900 for race, with updated technology and materials, 25 years more advanced to be more precise :roll:

User avatar
ringo
225
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

He has a point though. The technology in the new engines is nothing but peace of mind.
When you take it for what it is, take it at face value, you see a car going round a track. You don't see the engine, the parts, the batteries, when the electric drive comes in, the harvesting. That is all academic.

What you see is a car going around a track. What you hear is the sound the engine makes. That is considered the show.

The V10s have made the show more impacting that the quiet engines we have now, regardless of what the technologies are that lie underneath the skin.

That is my argument. The V6 is all politics and ideals. When it comes to the purity of the sport the V10 is the clear choice. And i believe for F1 to survive, it needs to be a greater show of power and road holding dynamics.

1.6 lt V6 doesn't have more tech than a 3.0lt v10. they are both chunks of metal. the major difference is one has a turbo charger with generator bolted on. that's the only difference. That's what it boils down to. I don't think the health of the sport is worth trading in for a trick turbine labeled green hybrid save the world energy.
For Sure!!

Moose
52
Joined: 03 Oct 2014, 19:41

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

Personally, I think the solution to getting interesting designs is trivially simple. Change the rules to say "no more than 100kg/h fuel flow, no more than 4.208GJ of energy stored on the car at the start of the race, no energy may be added to the car during the race, other than that, anything goes".

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 10:15
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

Agenda_Is_Incorrect wrote:The new turbo engines are used in less than 5% of the cars around the world and that will continue to be the situation as NORMAL,
False, that´s the situation today, but it will change soon, you just have to look at any brand catalogue, today a good percentage of production cars are turbocharged, almost every diesel and an increasing percentage of petrol ones

Even Smart use turbocharged engines on the 90hp version of the small fortwo
Agenda_Is_Incorrect wrote:Tubo downsized engines are an European approach to the lack of good European HIGH POWER (again, high power) combustion engines. Europe has weird laws based on fetishism for egalitarian measures and pure engineering prejudice, like over taxing engines bigger than 2.0 liters of displacement instead of putting a restriction on consumption.
Of course, LaFerrari is japanese, P1 is american, 918 is from Australia, Veneno from Korea, and Huayra from China....
Agenda_Is_Incorrect wrote:As a result, European manufacturers have had no good V6 and V8 engines for a long time. AND - that's an important and - they have so much scale on small, sub-2.0 liters, 4 cilinders engines as a result of an obsession of low consumption and not looking like Americans (lol :lol: ) that it's just better FOR THEM to have their HIGH POWER engine options based on the same 4 cilinders they use on normal to low power options - you just bolt on the turbo on them.
BMW M4/5/6 are nice 4 cilinder engines, Mercedes is also using 4 cilinders on SLK, SLS... as Maserati, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Jaguar, Bentley, ...

Some manufacturers like Peugeot, Citroen, Seat, Skoda, etc. use small 4 cilinder engines because their target customer is people with practicality in mind, people who don´t care about perfomance but about how affordable the car is

But that doesn´t mean European manufacturers have no good V6 or V8 engines, or their high power engines are based on 4 cilinder engines.... sorry but that´s BS
Agenda_Is_Incorrect wrote:When you consider a PACKAGE (a car is a package, that's why a Prius will spend MORE fuel than many more powerful, non hybrids - inspite the very efficient engine)
So Top Gear is your reference :lol: :lol: :lol:

Top Gear did the comparison on track, where the hybrid part is just a ballast, but on normal use they save a lot of fuel compared to any other petrol or even diesel car. Here in Madrid Prius is becoming the usual taxi, I guess they know something about fuel economy, and that´s a 15 years old design.

BMW I8 use 2l with 362hp

Now tell me some more efficient package with a petrol/diesel engine, if you can
Agenda_Is_Incorrect wrote:When you have an engineering sense, you know that things are supposed to have a clear objective. The closest you are from it, the more OVERALL efficient you are. You can desing a combustion engine with 50% or more fuel efficiency for F1, but if it weights and takes 3 times more space than an "outdated" 40-45% fuel efficient one, you have an LESS efficient car overall.
True, but your´re ignoring an important point. Century old technology vs new technology.

It´s new technology with a huge margin to evolve, while the previous one was on its limit, there wasn´t too much margin to evolve

F1 used to be the pinnacle of motorsports, that means it should use the latest technology, even if it means going one step backwards first seasson of this technology to be able to evolve much more in a near future
Agenda_Is_Incorrect wrote:A car less efficient overall is a car that will be slower, use more resources to build and keep (offsetting the gains on solo-engine efficiency) and will need artificial rules to be competitive. Sounds like the current formula and the current European obsession on downsized, turbo 4 cylinders.
When you have an engineering sense as you said, you know it actually is the artificial rules (fuel flow limit) that prevent this engines from crushing V10 power figures, and I said engines because they wouldn´t need the hybrid part for that, only the petrol engine would do it, even with the european obsession on downsized turbo engines
Agenda_Is_Incorrect wrote:A turbo is generally HEAVYER and uses MORE fuel than the same engine while naturally aspirated.
Comparing fuel use of turbo and atmospheric engines of same displacement ignoring the turbo one will provide tons more power and way better perfomance is not what I´d call a comparison from someone with an engineering sense...
Agenda_Is_Incorrect wrote:Small downsized turbos, like 1 liter/3 cylinder turbos, are only good to escape laws against bigger displacements that many countries have.
I don´t know any law against big displacement engines, I do know laws about pollution tough

What´s the reason you consider size as an important factor for the package efficiency but you do not consider emissions as another factor for that same efficiency?
Agenda_Is_Incorrect wrote:Do the math's: the same fuel economy with less components, more overall efficiency and cheaper on the long run.
False, false, and false

You can repeat it all you want, but they´re not same fuel economy, turbo engines provide better fuel efficiency, so not better efficiency and not cheaper on the long run. They were cheaper on the long run some years back, when turbos where not reliable. Today they´re pretty reliable and they save fuel, so they´re cheaper on the long term

Do the maths :wink:
Agenda_Is_Incorrect wrote:The history is the same for hybrids. End of it.
True, they´re more efficient and that´s with new technology with a huge margin to improve, imagine the situation in 10 years

If you disagree I´ll be glad to hear some more efficient package than BMW I8 PU, 2litres for 362hp.

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 10:15
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

OMG, sorry for the previous post, didn´t realice it was so long :oops:

ringo wrote:He has a point though. The technology in the new engines is nothing but peace of mind.
When you take it for what it is, take it at face value, you see a car going round a track. You don't see the engine, the parts, the batteries, when the electric drive comes in, the harvesting. That is all academic.

What you see is a car going around a track. What you hear is the sound the engine makes. That is considered the show.

The V10s have made the show more impacting that the quiet engines we have now, regardless of what the technologies are that lie underneath the skin.

That is my argument. The V6 is all politics and ideals. When it comes to the purity of the sport the V10 is the clear choice. And i believe for F1 to survive, it needs to be a greater show of power and road holding dynamics.

1.6 lt V6 doesn't have more tech than a 3.0lt v10. they are both chunks of metal. the major difference is one has a turbo charger with generator bolted on. that's the only difference. That's what it boils down to. I don't think the health of the sport is worth trading in for a trick turbine labeled green hybrid save the world energy.
If you consider F1 as a show, then I agree, but to me F1 must also be the pinnacle of motorsport technology with battles not only on the track but also on the headquarters. This is new technology that opened this field again, despite the stupid freeze rule.

I can´t remind the last innovation engine wise before Mercedes split turbo... with frozen engines designed 7 seassons back F1 was anything but innovation

santos
11
Joined: 06 Nov 2014, 16:48

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

The V10 had his time... it's from the past. If people want to see F1 with V10 or V12 engines maybe they should start to see the FIA Masters Historic Formula One Championship.

User avatar
McLobby
2
Joined: 02 Oct 2014, 20:15

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

Andres125sx wrote: I don´t know any law against big displacement engines, I do know laws about pollution tough
What´s the reason you consider size as an important factor for the package efficiency but you do not consider emissions as another factor for that same efficiency?
I have to pay 1150 Euros every year for my 330i in a country where the basic salary is 500, while an old 1400cc pays 135 euros and a prius owner pays nothing.
Since this was the case even before laws about Co2 were established, I consider that a law against big displacement engines. Since the 70's, big displacement engines were taxed as hell.
Of course, LaFerrari is japanese, P1 is american, 918 is from Australia, Veneno from Korea, and Huayra from China....
Also you talk about supercars that only about a 2% of Europeans can afford, but lets be honest, the average American can afford a V8, the average european never could cause of the high tax laws, they had to content to small 4 cylinders, which had an impact on the strategy of the car industries.
If you disagree I´ll be glad to hear some more efficient package than BMW I8 PU, 2litres for 362hp.
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution FQ-440 MR . 440hp from a 2l turbo engine without the hybrid bs

If we want to talk about emissions, Toyota admits that the production of its Prius requires much more energy and emits more carbon dioxide than the production of its gas-only models, and lets not talk about the great harm to the ecology and environment where their batteries are build.
It may make up for that in a lifetime usage, but only for Co2, but what about the acids that entering the groundwater from the extraction of the gold-flecked metals, and the much higher sulfur oxide emissions, that come from the hybrid battery manufacturers? Also with the trend building behind it it has became the new i-phone of cars, everybody is going for the newer models after 4-5 years, doing more harm, than good.
I may be a little old, and have prehistoric views about motorsports but I've always been a petrolhead and I am sure a lot of F1 fans think the same. No one of the prius owners I know of, was ever interested in F1 or any other motorsports,, they are not car enthusiasts. They would be compromised in a boring and bland car because all they care about is efficiency, economy,trend, hype etc. (and to be smug about their trendy car-gadget too, lol)
F1 adapted this ''new'' hybrid technology mainly for marketing and ''green image'' reasons which obviously according to the numbers didn't go well at all. Despite the fact that the decline started many years ago, this new era didn't help at all, and in many cases it was worse than previous years.
Also just because they saw the world ''they care'' with their environmental ''friendly'' approach and their ''new'' technology, doesn't makes them a better, more evolved motorsport and all the other ones ancient and prehistoric!
Imo that's what f1 has became, the pinnacle of smugness.
Image

User avatar
Hail22
144
Joined: 08 Feb 2012, 07:22

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

ringo wrote:He has a point though. The technology in the new engines is nothing but peace of mind.
When you take it for what it is, take it at face value, you see a car going round a track. You don't see the engine, the parts, the batteries, when the electric drive comes in, the harvesting. That is all academic.

What you see is a car going around a track. What you hear is the sound the engine makes. That is considered the show.

The V10s have made the show more impacting that the quiet engines we have now, regardless of what the technologies are that lie underneath the skin.

That is my argument. The V6 is all politics and ideals. When it comes to the purity of the sport the V10 is the clear choice. And i believe for F1 to survive, it needs to be a greater show of power and road holding dynamics.

1.6 lt V6 doesn't have more tech than a 3.0lt v10. they are both chunks of metal. the major difference is one has a turbo charger with generator bolted on. that's the only difference. That's what it boils down to. I don't think the health of the sport is worth trading in for a trick turbine labeled green hybrid save the world energy.

I wholeheartedly agree with you mate, 70% of Formula 1 fans (guesstimate = plucked from my behind)...will only see / hear the sport and that's them for the season. Most of them will not care to further research nor appreciate the technological prowess / ingenuity that has gone into building these new hybrid powerplants.

Formula 1 is foremost an entertainment hub for most people who watch it.



Webber going flat out with a screaming V10 through Eau Rouge = Fans hairs stand up. I agree that Formula 1 needs to move forward, but the V6 hybrid unit isn't ticking most "fans" (not enthusiasts / technical experts) boxes.
If someone said to me that you can have three wishes, my first would have been to get into racing, my second to be in Formula 1, my third to drive for Ferrari.

Gilles Villeneuve

Moose
52
Joined: 03 Oct 2014, 19:41

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

One thing that's interesting from that particular video, is that while the sound that's recorded is less interesting now (not the engines, the actual recordings), you can now actually hear the car that you're watching. There's a lot of times during that video that the sound does not actually correspond to the car you're watching, that means it becomes very difficult to pick out when gear changes are happening, whether they're taking corners flat, etc.

User avatar
WaikeCU
14
Joined: 14 May 2014, 00:03

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

Wikipedia wrote:In 1966, with sports cars capable of outrunning Formula 1 cars thanks to much larger and more powerful engines, the FIA increased engine capacity to 3.0 L atmospheric and 1.5 L compressed engines.
Sounds a bit similar to nowadays with GP2 matching the F1 backmarkers and LMP1's having similar top speeds. I do believe that nowadays the technology in LMP1 is much more of a higher standard than the F1 technology or is it just me?

Harsha
12
Joined: 01 Dec 2012, 14:35

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

WaikeCU wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:In 1966, with sports cars capable of outrunning Formula 1 cars thanks to much larger and more powerful engines, the FIA increased engine capacity to 3.0 L atmospheric and 1.5 L compressed engines.
Sounds a bit similar to nowadays with GP2 matching the F1 backmarkers and LMP1's having similar top speeds. I do believe that nowadays the technology in LMP1 is much more of a higher standard than the F1 technology or is it just me?
Its not just you mate,
Currently LMP 1 is becoming pinnacle of Motorsports with lot more innovation atleast better than F1 due to ever tightening rules in F1 curbing creativity

User avatar
Hail22
144
Joined: 08 Feb 2012, 07:22

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

I agree and this years LMP1 Champion won in a naturally aspirated 3.7l V8 with KERS rather than Audi's Turbo diesel / Hybrid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_TS040_Hybrid

Wouldn't it be wise of the FIA / FoM to put a standard amount of fuel per grand prix and fuel flow limit (adjusted depending the circuit / race length) but opening engine classes as long as all engines are similar in terms of torque and power output that would be agreed to by a group of motor engineers rather than the technical working group. Or am I being unrealistic?
Last edited by Hail22 on 19 Dec 2014, 11:19, edited 1 time in total.
If someone said to me that you can have three wishes, my first would have been to get into racing, my second to be in Formula 1, my third to drive for Ferrari.

Gilles Villeneuve

User avatar
Sebp
15
Joined: 09 Mar 2010, 22:52
Location: Surrounded

Re: Return Of The Mighty V-10?

Post

In my opinion the way to approach this topic of which PU is the best for F1, is to open up the engine regulations completely. Let the engineers figure it out. The only restriction I would impose is a maximum fuel limit based on its respective specific energy content. Minimum weight regulation is still a must of course. Like this we could see a lot of different approaches kind of like with LMP, only more radical. I don't think we'd have exploding budgets because with open regulations there are more options to outsmart your opponents. May the cleverest team win!!
No smartphone was involved in creating this message.

Post Reply