2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[PlatinumZealot]

Votex tubes bleed excess air. So the calculation have to done done if the power output or reduction in drag from less radiator opening is worth the additional compressor work.

[wogx]

[Hoffman900]

I know people only hear / read what they what to hear / read, but…

“In the first year of the regulations, to have such a new concept of car, with the powertrain frozen, that was not good", "of course we had a lot of frustation being behind Mercedes, both us and Renault were struggling. If we had a chance to introduce some performance modifications during the year, Mercedes would have still won anyway, but we could have made their lives a bit harder"”but we couldn't introduce anything for performance. It was very frustrating already having an engine that was much better on the dyno but not being able to use it because of the regulations. So it was very good that the FIA accepted the change of regulations at the end of 2014, allowing teams to use tokens for performance during the race season".
"I think the FIA did a great job of coordinating the input from different manufacturers. At the very beginning, I remember, Toyota, BMW, and Honda were also present and involved in the definition of the rules. People now claim the rules were designed for Mercedes but that is completely wrong"
"I remember that at the time, some decisions had to be based on the taking the safer route. We thought reliability would have played a major role in the season, but in the end that was not the case. By the time we got to Bahrain we realized the deficit, but there was not time to react because we were already building engines for the first race".
“So we were struggling to handle a racing season where the company was expecting you to succeed, while at the same time you were using the dynos to run the new concept. We paid the price for that in 2013, as we developed the new engine on just one dyno and a single-cylinder engine. The V8 and the new engine could not share the same dyno. It was only at the end of 2013 that were were able to use all our facilities for the new powertrain"... "the overlapping period needed to be done with more redundancy". "This was the approaching taken by Mercedes, which by mid-2013 had a skeleton team working on its V8 program."

- Luca Marmorini from Race Engine Technology Issue 100, Feb 2017

[vorticism]

"designed for" and "bent the rules for" are of course two different sentiments. All teams would try to bend the rules to their favor during those times, that's why they convene and discuss such things, so what the Merc engineer said is both true and inconsequential. Question is why did Renault and Ferrari invest less time and money beforehand? Or maybe it wasn't so much that, rather more about staffing.

[Hoffman900]

"designed for" and "bent the rules for" are of course two different sentiments. All teams would try to bend the rules to their favor during those times, that's why they convene and discuss such things, so what the Merc engineer said is both true and inconsequential. Question is why did Renault and Ferrari invest less time and money beforehand? Or maybe it wasn't so much that, rather more about staffing.

This.

Once the rules were settled, Merc pivoted resources, made dynos available, etc. Ferrari didn’t, as pointed out by Luca Marmorini.

For those new, this is the drama that went down then. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/axed ... ri/455457/

Let's set the record straight - with my colleagues I made a smaller size (engine) than Mercedes and Renault because that is what Mr (Nikolas) Tombazis, the project manager of the car, asked for.He said he wanted a very compact PU, with small radiators, because the reduced power would be compensated by aerodynamic solutions that give us an advantage over the Mercedes and Renault cars.

"It was exactly like that, except that when we found the competition, we had less power but the compensation from the aerodynamics was not there."

Marmorini said he was dismissed by Mattiacci, even though "in three months we saw each other twice - first for a greeting, the second when he gave me a letter that confirmed my departure from the company".

"Look, I don't want to accuse anyone," he added. "Really. But Ferrari is entrusting its racing department to inexperienced people who are putting blind faith in certain people who so far have shown nothing."

Marmorini said he is referring to Britons Pat Fry and James Allison.

"Ferrari also runs the risk of damaging the bedrock on which the many past successes were built," he added. "I don't speak for me as I'm already gone.

"But I'm sorry for the good engineers who are still there and demoralised."

[AR3-GP]

"designed for" and "bent the rules for" are of course two different sentiments. All teams would try to bend the rules to their favor during those times, that's why they convene and discuss such things, so what the Merc engineer said is both true and inconsequential. Question is why did Renault and Ferrari invest less time and money beforehand? Or maybe it wasn't so much that, rather more about staffing.

This.

Once the rules were settled, Merc pivoted resources, made dynos available, etc. Ferrari didn’t, as pointed out by Luca Marmorini.

For those new, this is the drama that went down then. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/axed ... ri/455457/

Let's set the record straight - with my colleagues I made a smaller size (engine) than Mercedes and Renault because that is what Mr (Nikolas) Tombazis, the project manager of the car, asked for.He said he wanted a very compact PU, with small radiators, because the reduced power would be compensated by aerodynamic solutions that give us an advantage over the Mercedes and Renault cars.

"It was exactly like that, except that when we found the competition, we had less power but the compensation from the aerodynamics was not there."

Marmorini said he was dismissed by Mattiacci, even though "in three months we saw each other twice - first for a greeting, the second when he gave me a letter that confirmed my departure from the company".

"Look, I don't want to accuse anyone," he added. "Really. But Ferrari is entrusting its racing department to inexperienced people who are putting blind faith in certain people who so far have shown nothing."

Marmorini said he is referring to Britons Pat Fry and James Allison.

"Ferrari also runs the risk of damaging the bedrock on which the many past successes were built," he added. "I don't speak for me as I'm already gone.

"But I'm sorry for the good engineers who are still there and demoralised."

Pat Fry and James Allison are highly regardly so in line with Marmorini having been fired, Marmorini almost seems a bit bitter that Ferrari was left in the hands of the "British invaders" (i.e not Italians...). Atleast that's the sentiment I get from it, the way he discusses it. When he says "risk damaging the bedrock upon which many past successes were built". Well that just sounds a heck of a lot like anti-british sentiment.

[Hoffman900]

"designed for" and "bent the rules for" are of course two different sentiments. All teams would try to bend the rules to their favor during those times, that's why they convene and discuss such things, so what the Merc engineer said is both true and inconsequential. Question is why did Renault and Ferrari invest less time and money beforehand? Or maybe it wasn't so much that, rather more about staffing.

This.

Once the rules were settled, Merc pivoted resources, made dynos available, etc. Ferrari didn’t, as pointed out by Luca Marmorini.

For those new, this is the drama that went down then. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/axed ... ri/455457/

Let's set the record straight - with my colleagues I made a smaller size (engine) than Mercedes and Renault because that is what Mr (Nikolas) Tombazis, the project manager of the car, asked for.He said he wanted a very compact PU, with small radiators, because the reduced power would be compensated by aerodynamic solutions that give us an advantage over the Mercedes and Renault cars.

"It was exactly like that, except that when we found the competition, we had less power but the compensation from the aerodynamics was not there."

Marmorini said he was dismissed by Mattiacci, even though "in three months we saw each other twice - first for a greeting, the second when he gave me a letter that confirmed my departure from the company".

"Look, I don't want to accuse anyone," he added. "Really. But Ferrari is entrusting its racing department to inexperienced people who are putting blind faith in certain people who so far have shown nothing."

Marmorini said he is referring to Britons Pat Fry and James Allison.

"Ferrari also runs the risk of damaging the bedrock on which the many past successes were built," he added. "I don't speak for me as I'm already gone.

"But I'm sorry for the good engineers who are still there and demoralised."

Pat Fry and James Allison are highly regardly so in line with Marmorini having been fired, Marmorini almost seems a bit bitter that Ferrari was left in the hands of the "British invaders" (i.e not Italians...). Atleast that's the sentiment I get from it, the way he discusses it. When he says "risk damaging the bedrock upon which many past successes were built". Well that just sounds a heck of a lot like anti-british sentiment.

There does seem to be some of that, but Motorsport.com is also a British publication, so there may be some prying at the behest of the writer. Like most things, the real story is probably a lot muddier than it is seemed made.

[AR3-GP]

This.

Once the rules were settled, Merc pivoted resources, made dynos available, etc. Ferrari didn’t, as pointed out by Luca Marmorini.

For those new, this is the drama that went down then. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/axed ... ri/455457/

Pat Fry and James Allison are highly regardly so in line with Marmorini having been fired, Marmorini almost seems a bit bitter that Ferrari was left in the hands of the "British invaders" (i.e not Italians...). Atleast that's the sentiment I get from it, the way he discusses it. When he says "risk damaging the bedrock upon which many past successes were built". Well that just sounds a heck of a lot like anti-british sentiment.

There does seem to be some of that, but Motorsport.com is also a British publication, so there may be some prying at the behest of the writer. Like most things, the real story is probably a lot muddier than it is seemed made.

Well maybe Motorsport.com was on a fishing expedition, but they didn't make him say anything he didn't already want to say

[mzso]

I wonder what this was about. Not a good idea to link tweets (or anything really) without comment.