But they have some knowledge about driveability, if they say V6T engines are more prone to oversteer, I can only accept itCold Fussion wrote:F1 drivers don't understand torque, they'd probably believe you if you told them torque is energy. F1 drivers and tv commentators don't have any real technical understanding.Andres125sx wrote:Sorry but it´s not me how talked about current PUs providing more torque than V8s, but F1 drivers
Except with V8s gearboxes were 7 speeds and V6T are 8 speeds, so they not only have a wider powerband, but also closer ratios (not sure if that´s the name, the step or rev drop between gears is lower)bhall II wrote:It means one of those cars isn't geared properly.Phil wrote:As I said about the two arguments; one is power delievery, the other is power availability at a given speed. If we take 3/4 revs - in the V6T @ 9000rpm (12000/4*3), it's ~690bhp, in the V8 @ 1350 (18000/4*3), it's ~530bhp. So as a result, the engine is producing more power (160bhp more) in a larger rev-range than the V8 does. What does this mean?
If, at any given throttle position/gear selection, the V6t has significantly more power in reserve than the V8, then either the V6t's gear ratios are too long or the V8's ratios are too short, because two cars with more or less the same horsepower should have more or less the same performance capabilities, regardless of torque/power band/whatever.
I never particularly liked the V8s, either, especially after an eight-year span (!) that included multiple downgrades. From a technical perspective, that was boring as hell. And from a sporting point of view, I never understood F1's willingness to elevate the role of aerodynamics to a position of supreme importance by default, when it's highly likely aerodynamics is the least popular aspect of the sport. ---, I looooooooove aerodynamics, and even I thought it went too far.Andres125sx wrote:I love that dilemma. I hated the trusty V8s that never caused any problem because they were tested for 7 years and any reliability problem had been solved. To me motorsports should always include some engineering battle, and F1 had become a motorsport with no engine prominence at all, nosense. Engineering battles means not only drivers go to the limit, but also engineers, and that causes reliability problems, something we didn´t enjoy in the frozen engines era . That´s how F1 is today, Mercedes did the better job, and all the rest need to catch up, what include some manufacturers trying to push the limits, test new solutions, and making mistakes (Honda)
I like it a lot more than frozen engines, it´s another battle inside same championship
ESPN wrote:"The initial decision from the engine working group was for a four-cylinder turbo to be introduced for 2013," said [Adrian] Newey. "The big driver behind that was Audi. They said they would come into the sport if there was a four-cylinder turbo, and that's what everyone agreed in order to get Audi in. They subsequently decided that they won't bother after all, thank you very much, and we were lumbered with a four-cylinder turbo."
I´m dead serious.bhall II wrote:You're joking, right?SectorOne wrote:[...]
If I've mistakenly assessed your view on the subject, then I apologize. But, I don't understand the relevance of the following statement if you're trying to say that "engine power isn't even on the scale" of difficulty/challenge/whatever. Or perhaps I misunderstood the intent.SectorOne wrote:The most taxing part on a driver is by far tires and aero. engine power isn´t even on the scale.
It´s incomparable to the cornering and braking aspects of a Formula 1 car in terms of being physically and mentally taxing.
The reason why I posted a long series of videos that depict cars spinning as a result of breaking traction is because I wanted to show how it doesn't really matter if a car has mountains of downforce, traction control, an electronic differential, and a whole host of other components expressly designed for quick stability, like the F2004, or is a generic rental with token wings and a very used engine, like the one seen at the "Yas Marina F3000 Driving Experience," a heavy right foot can easily cause a spin regardless. There's nothing new here.SectorOne wrote:Last time i checked the V8´s went like on rails while today you see huge oversteer moments in corners because someone got a little bit too excited on the throttle mid-corner.
I fully agree with everything you said here. Spectacular picture btw =D>bhall II wrote:I never particularly liked the V8s, either, especially after an eight-year span (!) that included multiple downgrades. From a technical perspective, that was boring as hell. And from a sporting point of view, I never understood F1's willingness to elevate the role of aerodynamics to a position of supreme importance by default, when it's highly likely aerodynamics is the least popular aspect of the sport. ---, I looooooooove aerodynamics, and even I thought it went too far.Andres125sx wrote:I love that dilemma
I like it a lot more than frozen engines, it´s another battle inside same championship
My issue with the new power units isn't so much the hardware, because there's no reason in the world why a V6t can't be incredibly compelling...
http://i.imgur.com/Io3vJbx.jpg
The devil, as they say, is in the details, and my problem is F1's tendency to shoot itself in the foot with rules that don't make sense and its willingness to sacrifice "the show" for the sake of the manufacturers' marketing interests.
I don't care if Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault, or Honda are able to profit from their participation in F1. Hell, I don't even care if they're involved at all. But, I do care when F1 allows itself to be held hostage by the demands of automakers, and I can't believe how easily these people cave in to that pressure.
ESPN wrote:"The initial decision from the engine working group was for a four-cylinder turbo to be introduced for 2013," said [Adrian] Newey. "The big driver behind that was Audi. They said they would come into the sport if there was a four-cylinder turbo, and that's what everyone agreed in order to get Audi in. They subsequently decided that they won't bother after all, thank you very much, and we were lumbered with a four-cylinder turbo."
Look at what this whole thing has become. On what planet is "ritualized fuel-saving" congruent with "the pinnacle of motorsport"? Yet, this is the way it had to be to make the money happy.
There was a time when a company could make a name for itself by virtue of its participation in F1. Nowadays, it seems like F1 is trying to make a name for itself by virtue of the company it keeps, and that's just weird to me, because I think it's totally unnecessary.
EDIT: Completely unrelated to the above, here's a decent writeup for anyone who'd like to learn more about the relationship between torque, horsepower, and gearing. We can't talk about it here, and rightfully so. But, there it is.
I must have a problem being way too optimistic, but I don´t see the fuel limit as a try to be green, but a way to improve efficiency. May be the same, but it´s different, I see it from an engineering point of view, improving efficiency is a challenge, a way to make the most of what you have instead of increasing displacement/adding turbos/increasing boost/adding fuel/etc, that´s the easy way, improving efficiency is the clever one.Emmcee wrote:I find it a joke tbh, f1 is not about "being green" it's about flatout racing in these supercars. The sound is part of the whole expierence and to be lapping almost 10 seconds slower than 10 years ago is a joke.
That is true but it limits the driver in the sense of being able to drive flatout like the old days. Alonso in Canada was a classic example, he just wanted to race and couldn't see the point of saving fuel and I agree, they don't have pace and now don't have the fuel consumption, that's pretty bad and alonso's frustrations are only what the sport is doing to the current crop of drivers, it's like lmp racing but a quarter of the distance.Andres125sx wrote:I must have a problem being way too optimistic, but I don´t see the fuel limit as a try to be green, but a way to improve efficiency. May be the same, but it´s different, I see it from an engineering point of view, improving efficiency is a challenge, a way to make the most of what you have instead of increasing displacement/adding turbos/increasing boost/adding fuel/etc, that´s the easy way, improving efficiency is the clever one.Emmcee wrote:I find it a joke tbh, f1 is not about "being green" it's about flatout racing in these supercars. The sound is part of the whole expierence and to be lapping almost 10 seconds slower than 10 years ago is a joke.
I´ve always admired japanesse manufacturers. With very limited power and engine displacements, they achieved awesome perfomances. USA is the opposite, with truck size engines...
