How best to (possibly) bring the V8s?

[ian_s]

The posts in the Engine Unfreeze thread about Horner wanting to bring back the v8s got me thinking.
Just how could they be made to run on similar terms to the turbo v6s?

The major differences i can see are:
1) Fuel flow limit
2) Energy Recovery
3) Brake-by-Wire
4) Fixed gear ratios
5) Exhaust Outlet

My ideas go like this:
1) ditch the 100kg per race completely. give the v8s a fuel flow limit as the V6s have, but 25% higher. this would effectively put a soft rev limit on them, depending on how lean they dare to let it go. the extra fuel compensates for the lack of an MGU-H. this could be adjusted if shown that the v8s are too fast or slow

2) no exhaust recovery allowed, but let them recover as much as they like and deploy 2mj per lap through an MGU-K

3) due to the large energy recovery possible, this is still needed

4) keep the fixed ratios, 8 speed boxes, and stop them buzzing into a rev limit on every straight.

5) 2 exhausts, but exiting in a similar zone to the V6 ones, just spread apart to either side - no exhaust blown floors or diffusers


i'm hoping someone smarter than me could do the maths and work out how powerful one of the v8s could be with 125kg/hr fuel, and what sort of rev limit they would have

[FoxHound]

Christian "hot air" Horner should consider his stance very carefully.
His team enjoyed 4 years of aerodynamic superiority built around a frozen engine formula.

Their EBD was the creme de la creme of blown d's. Double entendre.
Mr Vettel's struggles this year are not without foundations in the banning of the system.

To get the same effect, Mercedes V8 needed more fuel to complete race distances. Multiple Kgs worth.

Surely Mr Horner being as unbiased as he pertains for the good of the sport, could paint a fairer reflection of what happened from 2010 until now?

Open the current engine regs, add a minimum decibel level, a maximum newton meter/coefficient for aero then let them play.

[nacho]

Five liter V10 with maximum bore size limit, minimum engine weight.

[Carbon]

I like the route another Forum user suggested, creating an A and B tier, where 'Have' squads - notably those with deep pockets or "Works Teams" run current spec power units, while those operating on lesser budgets can run V8s. Points distributed to both A and B racers alike. Adding complex equivalency formulas will only add to the expense of bringing a car to the grid.

I dunno...probably thinking out loud.

[eyalynf1]

The posts in the Engine Unfreeze thread about Horner wanting to bring back the v8s got me thinking.
Just how could they be made to run on similar terms to the turbo v6s?

The major differences i can see are:
1) Fuel flow limit
2) Energy Recovery
3) Brake-by-Wire
4) Fixed gear ratios
5) Exhaust Outlet

My ideas go like this:
1) ditch the 100kg per race completely. give the v8s a fuel flow limit as the V6s have, but 25% higher. this would effectively put a soft rev limit on them, depending on how lean they dare to let it go. the extra fuel compensates for the lack of an MGU-H. this could be adjusted if shown that the v8s are too fast or slow

2) no exhaust recovery allowed, but let them recover as much as they like and deploy 2mj per lap through an MGU-K

3) due to the large energy recovery possible, this is still needed

4) keep the fixed ratios, 8 speed boxes, and stop them buzzing into a rev limit on every straight.

5) 2 exhausts, but exiting in a similar zone to the V6 ones, just spread apart to either side - no exhaust blown floors or diffusers

i'm hoping someone smarter than me could do the maths and work out how powerful one of the v8s could be with 125kg/hr fuel, and what sort of rev limit they would have

I don't like any prescriptive limits on the powerplant on principle. But let's say we did allow both V8s and current V6s. I would adjust your rules thusly:

1) I would keep the total fuel limit, but ditch the fuel flow limit entirely. This would eliminate the rev limit as you say. This allows more technical freedom and innovation. It would allow either solution the ability to get on equal terms. I think the total fuel limit is sufficiently to equalize performance combined with 2)
2) Recover and deploy as much energy per lap as available, or to the same total for both V8 and V6. This is in the same spirit as the same total fuel limit. Equal terms on energy input, technical competition for what you get out of it. This means V8 KERS would increase in capacity, and perhaps add provision for front axle KERS. Or not, as you could save the money, come in 10th place and still pay your creditors!
3) Agreed
4) I would prefer complete technical freedom here. But I think cost wise it's a good compromise to have fixed ratio 8-speed.
5) I would not regulate exhaust positions. Anycar can blow what/whomever they like, but if you are bingo fuel on the penultimate lap from all the hot blowing, no points for DNF.
6) ADD an EFFING resonator on the outside of the exhaust for loudness!!!! Why has no one thought of this?

[trinidefender]

My main concern about this is people say it is cheaper to bring back the V8's. I'm not so sure. Teams will have to go dig out all the tooling required to manufacture the old engines. More design work will have to be implemented to bring them up to modern times with direct injection etc. My major point, so much money has already been spent on design work of the new V6's. After a few years the costs of the new V6 will come under control and the engine would have matured. Most likely all three.....correction four, designs will be on about the same level.

Every time a new engine design comes out people always complain about this and that. I'm sure with a little ingenuity by the FIA and teams the noise or lack thereof, problem can be fixed.

[wuzak]

1) I would keep the total fuel limit, but ditch the fuel flow limit entirely. This would eliminate the rev limit as you say. This allows more technical freedom and innovation. It would allow either solution the ability to get on equal terms.

One of the things people have moaned about in 2014 is the perceived fuel saving that goes on. If the V8s had to run races to 100kg fuel use then there would be significant fuel savings - remember that they started races in 2013 with 150-160kg of fuel. Granted, the slower tyres and lesser downforce would reduce the fuel needed, but they will still be fuel saving a lot more than the V6Ts.

The fuel flow limit restricts power. So if the V8s ran the same 160hp MGUK as the V6s they will be down on power with the same fuel flow limit. But that could be adjusted to make it more even.

If the V8s used KERS from last year - lower storage and only 80hp - they would need a higher fuel flow limit to have the same power. Remember, the aim of the V6T rules was to have approximately the same total power as the V8s + KERS.

The problem with 2 tier systems is that the old engines will generally not be allowed to compete with the new ones. So that may not be beneficial, in th elong term, for teams such as Sauber and Force India.

[Ciro Pabón]

Excellent idea! Let's change engines every year!

What could possibly go wrong?

The Hole In Me


Actually, we could change engines (from V8 to V16) for the last race.

Double the cylinders!

You know, to make things more interesting.

[xpensive]

Oh that's easy, just give the V8s back the free Rpm, real screamers at 20k+, oh mama...xcitement is back at last!

Besides, I've truly missed the time when you could enjoy a goog blow-up, I'm serious, cars has become way too reliable.

[langwadt]

The posts in the Engine Unfreeze thread about Horner wanting to bring back the v8s got me thinking.
Just how could they be made to run on similar terms to the turbo v6s?

The major differences i can see are:
1) Fuel flow limit
2) Energy Recovery
3) Brake-by-Wire
4) Fixed gear ratios
5) Exhaust Outlet

My ideas go like this:
1) ditch the 100kg per race completely. give the v8s a fuel flow limit as the V6s have, but 25% higher. this would effectively put a soft rev limit on them, depending on how lean they dare to let it go. the extra fuel compensates for the lack of an MGU-H. this could be adjusted if shown that the v8s are too fast or slow

2) no exhaust recovery allowed, but let them recover as much as they like and deploy 2mj per lap through an MGU-K

3) due to the large energy recovery possible, this is still needed

4) keep the fixed ratios, 8 speed boxes, and stop them buzzing into a rev limit on every straight.

5) 2 exhausts, but exiting in a similar zone to the V6 ones, just spread apart to either side - no exhaust blown floors or diffusers

i'm hoping someone smarter than me could do the maths and work out how powerful one of the v8s could be with 125kg/hr fuel, and what sort of rev limit they would have

I don't like any prescriptive limits on the powerplant on principle. But let's say we did allow both V8s and current V6s. I would adjust your rules thusly:

1) I would keep the total fuel limit, but ditch the fuel flow limit entirely. This would eliminate the rev limit as you say. This allows more technical freedom and innovation. It would allow either solution the ability to get on equal terms. I think the total fuel limit is sufficiently to equalize performance combined with 2)
2) Recover and deploy as much energy per lap as available, or to the same total for both V8 and V6. This is in the same spirit as the same total fuel limit. Equal terms on energy input, technical competition for what you get out of it. This means V8 KERS would increase in capacity, and perhaps add provision for front axle KERS. Or not, as you could save the money, come in 10th place and still pay your creditors!
3) Agreed
4) I would prefer complete technical freedom here. But I think cost wise it's a good compromise to have fixed ratio 8-speed.
5) I would not regulate exhaust positions. Anycar can blow what/whomever they like, but if you are bingo fuel on the penultimate lap from all the hot blowing, no points for DNF.
6) ADD an EFFING resonator on the outside of the exhaust for loudness!!!! Why has no one thought of this?

Removing the fuel flow limit would mean the V6s can save fuel and have 1500HP anywhere a V8 would try to overtake

With the MGU-H the V6s have an efficiency advantage thus more power on average for the race.

running out of fuel is already a DQ for not having enough for a 1liter fuel sample

If you recover the energy from the exhaust with the MGU-H there is less energy to make noise, nothing can change that

[J.A.W.]

Unless its - "even too silly for F1" - maybe adding a shriek-tuned whistle/siren on the end of the exhaust/tail-pipe?

[McMrocks]

I like the route another Forum user suggested, creating an A and B tier, where 'Have' squads - notably those with deep pockets or "Works Teams" run current spec power units, while those operating on lesser budgets can run V8s. Points distributed to both A and B racers alike. Adding complex equivalency formulas will only add to the expense of bringing a car to the grid.

I dunno...probably thinking out loud.

I don't know but there is one feature in F1 that has big advantages. It is called: The one who crosses the line first wins.
As you said we'd need to add a "complex equivalency formula" to compensate the advantage that the V8 has. That would drive F1 in a mess like the balance of performance in other series. The big teams will lobby like hell. And if the formula turns out to be in favour of the V8-powered cars we could see Merc and Ferrari becoming non-works teams suddenly.

But who knows... with the current level of Sanity of the FiA everything is possible.

[goonerf1]

Forgive me if this is a bit of an obvious statement, but why not just limit the BHP to say 800hp and leave it at that? Teams can run whichever configuration of engine they want then, normally aspirated will have it's pro's and con's, as will turbo's with ERS.

[natehall]

How about only a few simple regulations for engines

1. Fuel Flow Limit of 90-100kg/h
2. Engines Provided to all customer teams must be of the latest specification and cost no more than £8 Million Per Annum
3. Cars must run the standard ecu and a standard engine wiring loom
4. Engine Mounting points for gearbox and chassis are identical.
5. Unlimited Engine Recovery allowed
6. Deployment of electrical energy allowed on all wheels

This solves the Have and have nots problems, the engine manufacturers are in F1 for marketing purposes and put the spend through there R&D Budgets, frees up the technical regulations for development of 4wd electrical energy (A place I see real world cars going in the next 10-20 years - giving a hint of road relevence) and enabling constructors to swap and change there engines

[goonerf1]

I'd personally adopt the WEC's "Equivalence of Performance" rules