planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:18 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23695
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
GingerFurball wrote:
pokerman wrote:
They carried over from the V10 era, I don't recall any new manufacturer entering during the V8 era?

Correct. 3 manufacturers left and Cosworth stopped supplying though.

Still, we should go back to engines manufacturers will have no interest in developing because LOUD NOISES


They left because they were bored of the V8's did they?.

Where are all the manufacturers battering down the door for the mighty V6T?. We have nearly half the amount of competitors than the V8 era so it's a strange line of argument.

(And I don't want to go back fwiw).

The manufacturers were there during the V10 era and then started leaving during the V8 era, what the V6T Hybrid did was keep the manufacturers that were left and even added one.


Because of the V8?.

No but Renault threatened to leave and Mercedes didn't want it either, there was actually little interest in the engines, the previous manufacturers were drawn in with the V10 engine which at that time was cutting edge technology.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23695
Lord Crc wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
The new hybrids will overwhelm the tyres with torque.


I've been to 4 hybrid era grand prixes and see no sign of tyres "overwhelmed". None.


The accelerator pedal has over twice the travel on the current hybrid V6 cars compared to the V8s before. That's to give the drivers a fighting chance of handling the available torque coming out of corners.

Yeah and that's actually called throttle control, with the V8's you could floor the throttle out of many corners something that took Vettel some time to adjust to in 2014 as he had a tendency to use too much throttle, then again I suppose he was the driver who had to make the biggest adjustment from the year before?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3008
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Which of these two concepts will increase the passion fans have for Formula One the most?

A- 19,000 rpm's
B- MGU-H

Formula 1 engines only exceeded 15,000rpm at the end of the 1994 season, and they only spent about 4 seasons hitting the 19,000rpm you talk about. The most powerful engines ever seen in the sport - the 1300hp turbos of the mid 80s - revved slower than the ones we have today.

You seem to have a very one dimensional, single minded point of view of the world. You don't seem to acknowledge that people may not share your priorities. To some fans, noise is very important. To some fans, high revving engines are very important.

To other fans, the technology is important. You may miss screaming V10s, other fans miss active suspension, or blown diffusers. Some fans misrefueling, some fans loathe refueling.

Your one opinion that high revving engines are one of the most important things is just one opinion. It's not one everyone shares.

And if you were to collect a large group of fans, most of them certainly wouldn't be that specific. They may say "we'd like noisier engines" - many would probably not have any real idea what an MGU-H was other than that they'd heard of it or that it's something to do with the turbo.

Ultimately, I feel that this back and forth is proving to be a fruitless endeavour. You are making no effort to have a reasonable debate on the topic, I was going to reply to your point by point response to my previous post, however when I read through it, it became clear you hadn't even done me the courtesy of reading what I had written - and if you had then you were deliberately replying to a subverted strawman variant.

I'm not expecting you to change your opinion or your values or agree with me as this is a forum and would be pointless if people didn't have differing opinions, but it's ultimately a pointless exercise for both of us if you're not going to properly take in what I write, or try to imply that I have said things I haven't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 445
Herb Tarlik wrote:
oz_karter wrote:
A regular, naturally aspirated, petrol-powered internal combustion engine is what... 20% efficient? What are the current cars? 45%? It's a huge difference. And don't forget, the more efficient, the more power gets to the wheels for each litre of fuel, it's not only about fuel saving.
Nobody cares. Absolutely nobody................You are incorrect. Past Formula One engines were VERY powerful. In 2005 (that's nearly 13 years ago) Mercedes Benz's and BMW's 3.0 liter engines produced 930 horsepower. Renault, Honda, Toyota and Ferrari had 900 horsepower.

Do the hybrid engines have more than this? If yes, it ain't much. I do not care. First of all, these 3.0 liter engines would be making well in excess of 1000 horsepower if they were developed during the past 13 years. And even if they were capped at 930 hp, no one would know that they were less powerful than the hybrids because of the fearsome sound that comes out of a 3.0 liter V-10 engine.

It would wonderfully awesome, something that the fans would quickly respond to, except for those who like to measure fuel efficiency!! :lol:



This is what your NOT comprehending. Why were engines from previous formula's louder???? Its not because fans wanted to hear more noise. Its because those engines had to rev at high peaks to create more power cycles inside the engine to produce the same amount of power a current formula one engine can produce with less power cycles. This is achieved by the engine being more fuel efficient. Thus having better thermal effiency for each power stroke created inside the engine. That is why the engines are quieter. They dont have to strain the engine to ungodly levels to achieve the same amount of power.

Last year mercedes w07 produced between 950-1000hp all while being more fuel efficient. Current engines can also produce more power than this but are capped due to fia restrictions on multiple components.....

Current formula one engines give fans exactly what they want in terms of performance. All cars are faster. Cars spend more time on the track racing instead of in the pits refueling. High power outputs and reliability compared to previous formula's. This is what fans wanted and they got it. Yes, the violent engine sound was muffled quite a bit but more noise doesn't equal better racing. A better sound experience at the venue (thats your opinion). I for one like hearing a turbo spool up, a wastegate opening up during a shift, the sound of a blow off valve as you lift off the throttle. (To each their own.) but if your looking for loud noise that you can hear from miles away is your fancy then perhaps a heavy metal concert would be more to your liking.

_________________
PF1 pick 10
2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3
2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3548
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
They carried over from the V10 era, I don't recall any new manufacturer entering during the V8 era?


Again, what manufacturers were there not already involved that could've entered?. If we only had 3 manufacturers involved like with the V6T then that leaves a lot more potential entrants. And yet only 1 entered for the V6T to bring the grand total to 4 Manufacturers in the Sport.

But we already had 7 Manufacturers during the V8's. You see the problem with the comparison,right?.
.

Yes with your comparison, 3 manufacturers left and 2 of the 3 left threatened to leave, Cosworth are not a car manufacturer.

The V6T Hybrid meant the manufacturers stayed and then they gained another one, only Ferrari were prepared to stay through thick and thin, now even Ferrari seem to be wavering.


It's not my comparison, thank you.

You're the one trying to compare number of new entrants in an era with 3 active manufacturers to an era we had nearly double the amount ALREADY INVOLVED.

Were you expecting the likes of Honda,Toyota or BMW to enter twice?. Or maybe just leave for a bit and come back?.

And to top off the ridiculousness of the boast we're talking about a mighty ONE more entrant in the V6-T era in first place.

All the manufacturers were there during the V10 era, a much loved engine, and then dispersed during the V8 era and then we were left with just 3 manufacturers, of these manufacturers both Renault and Mercedes wanted rid of the engines, did I really need to point out the last bit?


And none of that changes that pointing out no-one joined during V8's when there were 7 active Manufacturers and 1 joined for the V6T when there were 3 active manufacturers is a ridiculous comparison for pretty obvious reasons which you can't seem to grasp.

No-one claimed they joined for the V8. No-one claimed they wanted the V8. There were 7 active Manufacturers so who else out there could join that wasn't already involved?. Ford or a VW representative is about all that could realistically have joined off the top of my head,right?.

Having more people join when you've only got 3 in the first place isn't in the least bit surprising or impressive when being compared to an era that had 7 (SEVEN) already involved and we had a global financial crisis in the middle of the era.

Terrible comparison.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3548
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
GingerFurball wrote:
Correct. 3 manufacturers left and Cosworth stopped supplying though.

Still, we should go back to engines manufacturers will have no interest in developing because LOUD NOISES


They left because they were bored of the V8's did they?.

Where are all the manufacturers battering down the door for the mighty V6T?. We have nearly half the amount of competitors than the V8 era so it's a strange line of argument.

(And I don't want to go back fwiw).

The manufacturers were there during the V10 era and then started leaving during the V8 era, what the V6T Hybrid did was keep the manufacturers that were left and even added one.


Because of the V8?.

No but Renault threatened to leave and Mercedes didn't want it either, there was actually little interest in the engines, the previous manufacturers were drawn in with the V10 engine which at that time was cutting edge technology.


BIB-Correct.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Mayhem wrote:



This is what your NOT comprehending. Why were engines from previous formula's louder???? Its not because fans wanted to hear more noise. Its because those engines had to rev at high peaks to create more power cycles inside the engine to produce the same amount of power a current formula one engine can produce with less power cycles. This is achieved by the engine being more fuel efficient. Thus having better thermal effiency for each power stroke created inside the engine. That is why the engines are quieter. They dont have to strain the engine to ungodly levels to achieve the same amount of power.


Nobody cares about fuel efficiency. Every person in power in Formula One states that the current engine formula MUST change. The vast majority of fans, every driver, team principle, and FIA head is pushing away from the current engine formula.
No one of note is defending the formula.

Mayhem wrote:
Last year mercedes w07 produced between 950-1000hp all while being more fuel efficient. Current engines can also produce more power than this but are capped due to fia restrictions on multiple components.....

Current formula one engines give fans exactly what they want in terms of performance. All cars are faster. Cars spend more time on the track racing instead of in the pits refueling. High power outputs and reliability compared to previous formula's. This is what fans wanted and they got it. Yes, the violent engine sound was muffled quite a bit but more noise doesn't equal better racing. A better sound experience at the venue (thats your opinion). I for one like hearing a turbo spool up, a wastegate opening up during a shift, the sound of a blow off valve as you lift off the throttle. (To each their own.) but if your looking for loud noise that you can hear from miles away is your fancy then perhaps a heavy metal concert would be more to your liking.


You are in the distinct minority. Fans want noise. The Drivers, teams, etc, all want more noise. Ridiculous ideas such as putting microphones on the cars are being floated to boost noise levels. No one at all at the decision making level is advocating for a quieter engine. No one. It's a 100% landslide against quiet engines.

I've been to several metal concerts (Iron Maiden, Judas Priest) and those don't even approach the intensity of a screaming V-10 engine. Perhaps a rocket launch does, but I've never gotten close to one of those.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 387
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Mayhem wrote:



This is what your NOT comprehending. Why were engines from previous formula's louder???? Its not because fans wanted to hear more noise. Its because those engines had to rev at high peaks to create more power cycles inside the engine to produce the same amount of power a current formula one engine can produce with less power cycles. This is achieved by the engine being more fuel efficient. Thus having better thermal effiency for each power stroke created inside the engine. That is why the engines are quieter. They dont have to strain the engine to ungodly levels to achieve the same amount of power.


Nobody cares about fuel efficiency. Every person in power in Formula One states that the current engine formula MUST change. The vast majority of fans, every driver, team principle, and FIA head is pushing away from the current engine formula.
No one of note is defending the formula.

Mayhem wrote:
Last year mercedes w07 produced between 950-1000hp all while being more fuel efficient. Current engines can also produce more power than this but are capped due to fia restrictions on multiple components.....

Current formula one engines give fans exactly what they want in terms of performance. All cars are faster. Cars spend more time on the track racing instead of in the pits refueling. High power outputs and reliability compared to previous formula's. This is what fans wanted and they got it. Yes, the violent engine sound was muffled quite a bit but more noise doesn't equal better racing. A better sound experience at the venue (thats your opinion). I for one like hearing a turbo spool up, a wastegate opening up during a shift, the sound of a blow off valve as you lift off the throttle. (To each their own.) but if your looking for loud noise that you can hear from miles away is your fancy then perhaps a heavy metal concert would be more to your liking.


You are in the distinct minority. Fans want noise. The Drivers, teams, etc, all want more noise. Ridiculous ideas such as putting microphones on the cars are being floated to boost noise levels. No one at all at the decision making level is advocating for a quieter engine. No one. It's a 100% landslide against quiet engines.

I've been to several metal concerts (Iron Maiden, Judas Priest) and those don't even approach the intensity of a screaming V-10 engine. Perhaps a rocket launch does, but I've never gotten close to one of those.


Its not just simply sound - when the lights go out you want to feel the ground vibrate and have your breath taken from you with concussion of sound from the start.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 445
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Mayhem wrote:



This is what your NOT comprehending. Why were engines from previous formula's louder???? Its not because fans wanted to hear more noise. Its because those engines had to rev at high peaks to create more power cycles inside the engine to produce the same amount of power a current formula one engine can produce with less power cycles. This is achieved by the engine being more fuel efficient. Thus having better thermal effiency for each power stroke created inside the engine. That is why the engines are quieter. They dont have to strain the engine to ungodly levels to achieve the same amount of power.


Nobody cares about fuel efficiency. Every person in power in Formula One states that the current engine formula MUST change. The vast majority of fans, every driver, team principle, and FIA head is pushing away from the current engine formula.
No one of note is defending the formula.


Thats your opinion and your entitled to it but as many other posts have mentioned before fuel efficency isnt just about mpg its also about maximizing engine power and that seems to be where you are under the misconception that the current formula is seeking better mpg where infact the fuel efficiency they are after is for performance gains which is being currently achieved..... U claim "no one cares" tell that to mercedes whom have the best performing engine. You dont care and that is fine but your claim of "no one cares" is far from the truth...


Herb Tarlik wrote:
Mayhem wrote:
Last year mercedes w07 produced between 950-1000hp all while being more fuel efficient. Current engines can also produce more power than this but are capped due to fia restrictions on multiple components.....

Current formula one engines give fans exactly what they want in terms of performance. All cars are faster. Cars spend more time on the track racing instead of in the pits refueling. High power outputs and reliability compared to previous formula's. This is what fans wanted and they got it. Yes, the violent engine sound was muffled quite a bit but more noise doesn't equal better racing. A better sound experience at the venue (thats your opinion). I for one like hearing a turbo spool up, a wastegate opening up during a shift, the sound of a blow off valve as you lift off the throttle. (To each their own.) but if your looking for loud noise that you can hear from miles away is your fancy then perhaps a heavy metal concert would be more to your liking.


You are in the distinct minority. Fans want noise. The Drivers, teams, etc, all want more noise. Ridiculous ideas such as putting microphones on the cars are being floated to boost noise levels. No one at all at the decision making level is advocating for a quieter engine. No one. It's a 100% landslide against quiet engines.


Thats one thing i do agree with you on is that gimmicks of putting mic's inside the engine bay to heighten engine noise. Thats not gonna produce what they are trying to replicate. No one is trying to apply rules to keep engine noise down. I dont ever recall anyone complaining about engine volume. As i stated above the engine noise is down due to other contributing factors within the current engine spec. Has nothing to with fans/ teams wanting a quieter car.

_________________
PF1 pick 10
2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3
2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 692
Location: UK
Seems that the new proposals would encourage Ilmor and Cosworth to re-enter with their engines and even other independant manufacturers as suggested above by Pokerman.

Sort of diminishes the value of Ferrrari's threat to leave, for that matter it puts Mercedes' and Renault's protestations in a different perspective.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41886707


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23695
Option or Prime wrote:
Seems that the new proposals would encourage Ilmor and Cosworth to re-enter with their engines and even other independant manufacturers as suggested above by Pokerman.

Sort of diminishes the value of Ferrrari's threat to leave, for that matter it puts Mercedes' and Renault's protestations in a different perspective.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41886707

They might attract other engine builders while they risk upsetting their present engine suppliers who they see as being risk of flight, more risky if you make them build something they don't want to build.

I'm not sure of the costing of such things, manufacturers probably can right off some costs as being R&D but these proposed engines are not going to involve cutting edge technology.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1550
Location: Miami, Florida
pokerman wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Again, you are missing the point. I do not care one whit about fuel efficient hybrid engines. They are abhorrent to motor racing as far as I am concerned.

I want engines that, as several others have already described here, are *fearsome*. The sound should instill awe, and yes, fear. They should be so powerful that you can hear them MILES away. The hybrid engines are one step away from being utterly useless to me in this regard. Only a full electric motor would be worse.

Nothing is more boring than the idea of watching an engine being fuel efficient. Nothing.

The new engines are fearsome. The V8s were the easiest engines to drive that have existed in the sport. The new hybrids will overwhelm the tyres with torque.

I'm quite happy if you admit that all you want is loud noisy engines and I will happily concede the V8s produced more noise than the V6s. But in every single other metric the new engines exceed the V8s in providing the thrills you are talking about.

You seem to be like a CD that has got repeatedly stuck on the words 'fuel efficiency' without actually processing it or evening seeming to understand what it means. If your argument goes beyond just wanting a noisier engine then it is basically that you would prefer a less powerful, less challenging engine if it was less fuel efficient than a more powerful, more challenging one.

Yep the V8's had more bark than bite.

Not so, so please stop reiterating this already because it's far from the truth.

Those V8's were so more bark than bite that LMP cars of the same era with all their nick-nack trinkets and assistive systems STILL couldn't touch these so called weak V8's, which by the way were rev limited in the way of safety because the FIA wanted to limit maxmum speeds if you recall. As well, they lost traction control with the V8's and until drivers acclimated to the system, they were losing the rear ends of the cars and spinning out. That wouldn't happen with an engine that lacks punch.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1550
Location: Miami, Florida
Ennis wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
The point being missed is that while FUEL EFFICIENCY is paramount on racing, that should not be the main focus in developing a RACE engine. The point is to make it FAST with reasonable fuel efficiency. The current formula is far beyond reasonable and has crossed the line right into an absurd extreme. The penalty system is also not proportional to the failure rate of any one of the half dozen components that usually fail. 30 grid penalties doled out consistently for a 20 car grid is about the most disproportionate ratio in existence.

But WHY is it that these absurd penalties are handed out? It's because the PU's necessity to create power with less fuel means it requires input from all sorts of trinket and do-dat systems that are all equally susceptible to failure and often when a component fails, it takes a few others with it and instead of a simple penalty for the one component, each failed component incurs a penalty and it all adds up and we've already seen penalties upwards of 50 places as well and the only way to stop that is to kill all the unnecessary components.

At more than triple the cost of the N/A engines these marvels of engineering are churning out just marginally greater power so the increased investment on return is just about a negative in my book. So on top of costing soooooo much more, they also land teams at the back of the grid and if they aren't able to finish in the points, that's money they also lose out on which makes it a lose, lose situation.

All this talk about technology moving forward and F1 needs to be about that, the sport needs to first get back to a more stable financial position, regrow the fan base to what it was in the first decade of this century in order to attract more sponsors, fix the whole distribution deal so every team that pays into the pot gets some money back so they too can continue in the sport. Once all that is hashed out, maybe then they can think about implementing ludicrous technology that costs more money than it's worth.

Just sayin'.


What a black & white way to look at things.

Firstly the development of any race engine is going to draw people in all different directions, not just with a primary focus on efficiency, and secondly there are enough people involved in F1 that they can both work on moving the sport forward in all the ways you mention whilst ALSO locking in engine regulations.

We want F1 to be the pinnacle. For F1 to be the pinnacle it needs more investment than other series. To get more investment than other series it needs big money behind it, like Mercedes & Renault for example. For those companies to invest big money it needs to be something that is relevant to their broader company. Maximum power high efficiency is a big selling point for them just now.

If Honda hadn't made such a backside of the engine, we wouldn't even be talking about these stupid grid penalties. For the ones outside of Honda, teams have often used it for tactical reasons (lets get more engines in the pool at a race we can overtake at anyway).

And for others - of course F1 isn't going to achieve high MPG. It would be daft of anyone to suggest otherwise. The point here has never been to make F1 fuel-efficient in general terms, but people keep making arguments as if it is.

It's not Black & White. Far from it.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20902
Option or Prime wrote:
Seems that the new proposals would encourage Ilmor and Cosworth to re-enter with their engines and even other independant manufacturers as suggested above by Pokerman.

Sort of diminishes the value of Ferrrari's threat to leave, for that matter it puts Mercedes' and Renault's protestations in a different perspective.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41886707

There seem to be conflicting arguments in that article. Ilmor and Cosworth are saying it would make it more affordable for other manufacturers to join, while Wolff is claiming it will substantially increase costs. They can't both be right


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 692
Location: UK
Zoue wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Seems that the new proposals would encourage Ilmor and Cosworth to re-enter with their engines and even other independant manufacturers as suggested above by Pokerman.

Sort of diminishes the value of Ferrrari's threat to leave, for that matter it puts Mercedes' and Renault's protestations in a different perspective.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41886707

There seem to be conflicting arguments in that article. Ilmor and Cosworth are saying it would make it more affordable for other manufacturers to join, while Wolff is claiming it will substantially increase costs. They can't both be right


Isn't Wolff's point that for existing manufacturers have to redesign there current PU, so its a change of direction but the cost to start from scratch would be achievable where it wasn't possible before because of cost and complexity?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4506
Option or Prime wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Seems that the new proposals would encourage Ilmor and Cosworth to re-enter with their engines and even other independant manufacturers as suggested above by Pokerman.

Sort of diminishes the value of Ferrrari's threat to leave, for that matter it puts Mercedes' and Renault's protestations in a different perspective.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41886707

There seem to be conflicting arguments in that article. Ilmor and Cosworth are saying it would make it more affordable for other manufacturers to join, while Wolff is claiming it will substantially increase costs. They can't both be right


Isn't Wolff's point that for existing manufacturers have to redesign there current PU, so its a change of direction but the cost to start from scratch would be achievable where it wasn't possible before because of cost and complexity?

That was the gist. Both can be right because one is an existing supplier who has to continue to develop the current lump and the other is coming from the ground up and only has to work on this one design.

Yet even though they say it will make it easier for them to get in the game they also say they would still need to partner with a manufacturer to be able to afford it. So we might be looking at Aston Martin/Cosworth or Jaguar/Illmore when independent engine suppliers team with smaller car manufacturers.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23695
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Again, you are missing the point. I do not care one whit about fuel efficient hybrid engines. They are abhorrent to motor racing as far as I am concerned.

I want engines that, as several others have already described here, are *fearsome*. The sound should instill awe, and yes, fear. They should be so powerful that you can hear them MILES away. The hybrid engines are one step away from being utterly useless to me in this regard. Only a full electric motor would be worse.

Nothing is more boring than the idea of watching an engine being fuel efficient. Nothing.

The new engines are fearsome. The V8s were the easiest engines to drive that have existed in the sport. The new hybrids will overwhelm the tyres with torque.

I'm quite happy if you admit that all you want is loud noisy engines and I will happily concede the V8s produced more noise than the V6s. But in every single other metric the new engines exceed the V8s in providing the thrills you are talking about.

You seem to be like a CD that has got repeatedly stuck on the words 'fuel efficiency' without actually processing it or evening seeming to understand what it means. If your argument goes beyond just wanting a noisier engine then it is basically that you would prefer a less powerful, less challenging engine if it was less fuel efficient than a more powerful, more challenging one.

Yep the V8's had more bark than bite.

Not so, so please stop reiterating this already because it's far from the truth.

Those V8's were so more bark than bite that LMP cars of the same era with all their nick-nack trinkets and assistive systems STILL couldn't touch these so called weak V8's, which by the way were rev limited in the way of safety because the FIA wanted to limit maxmum speeds if you recall. As well, they lost traction control with the V8's and until drivers acclimated to the system, they were losing the rear ends of the cars and spinning out. That wouldn't happen with an engine that lacks punch.

I would be guessing that a LMP car would be about twice the weight of a F1 V8 car?

The engines had no torque and have to be revved like a squealing banshee to get performance out of them, this performance limited rev limit is nothing compared to the shackles that are put on the current V6T Hybrids.

When Button first drove a Hybrid engine he couldn't believe the torque in the engines as he could wheel spin in the higher gears, 4th, 5th and 6th, whereas with the V8's you would have to be in the lower gears 1st and 2nd to evoke wheel spin, also drivers were being caught out by the extra power and having far more spins.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23695
Option or Prime wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Seems that the new proposals would encourage Ilmor and Cosworth to re-enter with their engines and even other independant manufacturers as suggested above by Pokerman.

Sort of diminishes the value of Ferrrari's threat to leave, for that matter it puts Mercedes' and Renault's protestations in a different perspective.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41886707

There seem to be conflicting arguments in that article. Ilmor and Cosworth are saying it would make it more affordable for other manufacturers to join, while Wolff is claiming it will substantially increase costs. They can't both be right


Isn't Wolff's point that for existing manufacturers have to redesign there current PU, so its a change of direction but the cost to start from scratch would be achievable where it wasn't possible before because of cost and complexity?

Also in regards to both Cosworth and Ilmor it's a bit misleading because the article says that both companies would need substantial backing from a third party to build the engines.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1096
pokerman wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Seems that the new proposals would encourage Ilmor and Cosworth to re-enter with their engines and even other independant manufacturers as suggested above by Pokerman.

Sort of diminishes the value of Ferrrari's threat to leave, for that matter it puts Mercedes' and Renault's protestations in a different perspective.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41886707

They might attract other engine builders while they risk upsetting their present engine suppliers who they see as being risk of flight, more risky if you make them build something they don't want to build.

I'm not sure of the costing of such things, manufacturers probably can right off some costs as being R&D but these proposed engines are not going to involve cutting edge technology.


Technology always marches forward. We may not get the interesting and obvious pneumatic valve that allowed such high engine revs, but buried within the car the technology is amazing and constantly improving and evolving.

Key features of the 2021 power unit:

- 1.6-litre, V6 turbo hybrid
- 3000 rpm higher engine running speed range to improve the sound
- Prescriptive internal design parameters to restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions
- Removal of the MGU-H
- More powerful MGU-K with focus on manual driver deployment in race together with option to save up energy over several laps to give a driver controlled tactical element to racing
- Single turbo with dimensional constraints and weight limits
- Standard energy store and control electronics
- High level of external prescriptive design to give 'plug-and-play' engine/chassis/transmission swap capability
- Intention to investigate tighter fuel regulations and limits on number of fuels used

What I find interesting is that with the removal of the MGU-H and more revs, the current engines are moving closer to the turbo engines of the previous era. The limit on fuels is logical, the stuff they used back in the 80's was truly toxic stuff.

I am a tech weenie, my first career was as a jet engine mechanic. I read technical publications like a teen reads fan zines. I love the tech in Formula One. I can watch a jet airliner and marvel at the amazing technology behind the fuel injectors inside the engines. But I also know when there are too many layers of technology being applied, especially to something that should be as simple as possible. Inclusion of the MGU-K was a waste of time and money, and just made the cars more complicated, expensive, and unreliable.

What, to be more efficient, to push fuel mileage from barely over 5 MPG to being closer to 6 MPG? It is either an exercise in futility or chasing down the rabbit hole of diminishing returns.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4506
I think you meant MGU-H at the end there Blinky.

I too like the technical aspects of F1 and the soon to be nowhere LMP1. The MGU-H is a marvelous idea that is too expensive and, for now unreliable, feature that isn't ready for primetime. While I'll be sorry that it's gone I still think it's great idea.

The MGU-K isn't being used in it's most efficient way now and won't be under the new rules either. By having it attached to the crank of the ICE it's seeing the same losses through the gearbox that the ICE does. It would make more sense to have it on the drive/half shafts.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23695
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Seems that the new proposals would encourage Ilmor and Cosworth to re-enter with their engines and even other independant manufacturers as suggested above by Pokerman.

Sort of diminishes the value of Ferrrari's threat to leave, for that matter it puts Mercedes' and Renault's protestations in a different perspective.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41886707

They might attract other engine builders while they risk upsetting their present engine suppliers who they see as being risk of flight, more risky if you make them build something they don't want to build.

I'm not sure of the costing of such things, manufacturers probably can right off some costs as being R&D but these proposed engines are not going to involve cutting edge technology.


Technology always marches forward. We may not get the interesting and obvious pneumatic valve that allowed such high engine revs, but buried within the car the technology is amazing and constantly improving and evolving.

Key features of the 2021 power unit:

- 1.6-litre, V6 turbo hybrid
- 3000 rpm higher engine running speed range to improve the sound
- Prescriptive internal design parameters to restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions
- Removal of the MGU-H
- More powerful MGU-K with focus on manual driver deployment in race together with option to save up energy over several laps to give a driver controlled tactical element to racing
- Single turbo with dimensional constraints and weight limits
- Standard energy store and control electronics
- High level of external prescriptive design to give 'plug-and-play' engine/chassis/transmission swap capability
- Intention to investigate tighter fuel regulations and limits on number of fuels used

What I find interesting is that with the removal of the MGU-H and more revs, the current engines are moving closer to the turbo engines of the previous era. The limit on fuels is logical, the stuff they used back in the 80's was truly toxic stuff.

I am a tech weenie, my first career was as a jet engine mechanic. I read technical publications like a teen reads fan zines. I love the tech in Formula One. I can watch a jet airliner and marvel at the amazing technology behind the fuel injectors inside the engines. But I also know when there are too many layers of technology being applied, especially to something that should be as simple as possible. Inclusion of the MGU-K was a waste of time and money, and just made the cars more complicated, expensive, and unreliable.

What, to be more efficient, to push fuel mileage from barely over 5 MPG to being closer to 6 MPG? It is either an exercise in futility or chasing down the rabbit hole of diminishing returns.

I have nowhere near the engineering knowledge that you have but even I can see that the jewel in the engine is the MGU-H for fuel efficiency, turbo lag and overall power. These engines race on 105Kg of fuel, the proposed engine if it hopes to produce the same level of power will be racing on about 150Kg of fuel which also will greatly increase the starting weights of the cars, and this peak power is dependent on 320hp of electrical energy recovered from the braking system, this has been seen as push to pass power so it's obviously restricted in use plus I've also heard a lot of this energy will have to be used to overcome the turbo lag.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3008
pokerman wrote:
I have nowhere near the engineering knowledge that you have but even I can see that the jewel in the engine is the MGU-H for fuel efficiency, turbo lag and overall power. These engines race on 105Kg of fuel, the proposed engine if it hopes to produce the same level of power will be racing on about 150Kg of fuel which also will greatly increase the starting weights of the cars, and this peak power is dependent on 320hp of electrical energy recovered from the braking system, this has been seen as push to pass power so it's obviously restricted in use plus I've also heard a lot of this energy will have to be used to overcome the turbo lag.

Here's the thing about doubling KERS. You know all that lifting and coasting people hate? Scrapping the MGU-H and getting more KERS means that drivers will have to coast a lot more because there are already some circuits where there isn't enough braking time to recharge it. The MGU-H can fill in for a lot of that at the moment, as well as all the other power and torque benefits it brings.

Here's the great irony. Some people would prefer an engine where the drivers are having to lift off more than an engine with more power and more throttle on time just because the lift and coast engine is less fuel efficient and makes more noise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23695
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I have nowhere near the engineering knowledge that you have but even I can see that the jewel in the engine is the MGU-H for fuel efficiency, turbo lag and overall power. These engines race on 105Kg of fuel, the proposed engine if it hopes to produce the same level of power will be racing on about 150Kg of fuel which also will greatly increase the starting weights of the cars, and this peak power is dependent on 320hp of electrical energy recovered from the braking system, this has been seen as push to pass power so it's obviously restricted in use plus I've also heard a lot of this energy will have to be used to overcome the turbo lag.

Here's the thing about doubling KERS. You know all that lifting and coasting people hate? Scrapping the MGU-H and getting more KERS means that drivers will have to coast a lot more because there are already some circuits where there isn't enough braking time to recharge it. The MGU-H can fill in for a lot of that at the moment, as well as all the other power and torque benefits it brings.

Here's the great irony. Some people would prefer an engine where the drivers are having to lift off more than an engine with more power and more throttle on time just because the lift and coast engine is less fuel efficient and makes more noise.

Also as I pointed out the cars will be much heavier and slower at the start of the races but the main concern like you say is that we want more noise apparently.

Regarding the noise aspect were is the greater revenue, is it in spectator attendance or TV viewing figures because as a telly watcher you can't even come close to be able to appreciate the noise aspect anyway, also have we not seen record crowds this year, were all these people that don't attend anymore because of the lack of noise, I see no mass walkout.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2877
Option or Prime wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Seems that the new proposals would encourage Ilmor and Cosworth to re-enter with their engines and even other independant manufacturers as suggested above by Pokerman.

Sort of diminishes the value of Ferrrari's threat to leave, for that matter it puts Mercedes' and Renault's protestations in a different perspective.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41886707

There seem to be conflicting arguments in that article. Ilmor and Cosworth are saying it would make it more affordable for other manufacturers to join, while Wolff is claiming it will substantially increase costs. They can't both be right


Isn't Wolff's point that for existing manufacturers have to redesign there current PU, so its a change of direction but the cost to start from scratch would be achievable where it wasn't possible before because of cost and complexity?


He is moaning about having to develop two engines a the same time. But surely that would always be the case since the regulations are changing? Wolff just wants an evolution of the current power units I guess, he does not want to see the MGU-H go. What a crybaby.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4397
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Regarding the noise aspect were is the greater revenue, is it in spectator attendance or TV viewing figures because as a telly watcher you can't even come close to be able to appreciate the noise aspect anyway, also have we not seen record crowds this year, were all these people that don't attend anymore because of the lack of noise, I see no mass walkout.

They're all in Herb Tarlik's imagination.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 216
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding the noise aspect were is the greater revenue, is it in spectator attendance or TV viewing figures because as a telly watcher you can't even come close to be able to appreciate the noise aspect anyway, also have we not seen record crowds this year, were all these people that don't attend anymore because of the lack of noise, I see no mass walkout.

They're all in Herb Tarlik's imagination.

Come on guys, you just haven't realised that the only thing you need from F1 is the noise!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23695
kleefton wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Seems that the new proposals would encourage Ilmor and Cosworth to re-enter with their engines and even other independant manufacturers as suggested above by Pokerman.

Sort of diminishes the value of Ferrrari's threat to leave, for that matter it puts Mercedes' and Renault's protestations in a different perspective.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41886707

There seem to be conflicting arguments in that article. Ilmor and Cosworth are saying it would make it more affordable for other manufacturers to join, while Wolff is claiming it will substantially increase costs. They can't both be right


Isn't Wolff's point that for existing manufacturers have to redesign there current PU, so its a change of direction but the cost to start from scratch would be achievable where it wasn't possible before because of cost and complexity?


He is moaning about having to develop two engines a the same time. But surely that would always be the case since the regulations are changing? Wolff just wants an evolution of the current power units I guess, he does not want to see the MGU-H go. What a crybaby.

I'm not sure any of the engine manufacturers want to see it go when the goal is to develop engines with cutting edge technology?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23695
dompclarke wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding the noise aspect were is the greater revenue, is it in spectator attendance or TV viewing figures because as a telly watcher you can't even come close to be able to appreciate the noise aspect anyway, also have we not seen record crowds this year, were all these people that don't attend anymore because of the lack of noise, I see no mass walkout.

They're all in Herb Tarlik's imagination.

Come on guys, you just haven't realised that the only thing you need from F1 is the noise!

Maybe they could visit the nearest airfield now and again for a noise fix? :)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1903
Ironically I found the old normally aspirated engines too loud up close and personal (at Silverstone) requiring ear plugs for sanity. Each to his own ;).

_________________
Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding the noise aspect were is the greater revenue, is it in spectator attendance or TV viewing figures because as a telly watcher you can't even come close to be able to appreciate the noise aspect anyway, also have we not seen record crowds this year, were all these people that don't attend anymore because of the lack of noise, I see no mass walkout.

They're all in Herb Tarlik's imagination.


Suuure. I was at the inaugural grand prix in Shanghai. Every grand stand was packed. 180,000 people there if I remember right. Myself along with a good 12 other expats rented a minibus to attend the race. Several years later I started going to that GP regularly with the same group of guys always renting a small bus for transport (lots of beer on that bus!). While attendance dropped off somewhat, our own group really took a dive the year after the hybrids appeared. Instead of renting a minibus, we simply took the train. 12 guys became 6 or 7 and then after several years the group broke up due to lack of interest. Meanwhile, attendance at the Chinese grand prix was so low that all of the grandstands at far side of the track were all shut down. Probably a good 50% of seats were gone and ticket prices dropped precipitously.

You can ignore it all you want but the lack of enthusiasm was palpable track side.

The facts are (and they are indeed facts), that NO ONE was calling for quieter engines. NO team is saying that they are satisfied with the engine sound of the hybrids. Not one single driver is satisfied with the engine sound. The FIA is working tirelessly to find ways to increase engine noise because the vast majority fans are clearly not satisfied with these soulless engines.

There isnt a single metric that you or any other deniers can point to that supports the hybrid engine's sound. Not one.

If this were an election it would be an absolute blow out, landslide loss for the hybrid engine's sound. It wouldnt even be close. The results would be called 5 minutes after the polls closed, if even that long.

Hopefully the new 3,000 rpm increase in revs works to improve on this, but I remain skeptical.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
pokerman wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding the noise aspect were is the greater revenue, is it in spectator attendance or TV viewing figures because as a telly watcher you can't even come close to be able to appreciate the noise aspect anyway, also have we not seen record crowds this year, were all these people that don't attend anymore because of the lack of noise, I see no mass walkout.

They're all in Herb Tarlik's imagination.

Come on guys, you just haven't realised that the only thing you need from F1 is the noise!

Maybe they could visit the nearest airfield now and again for a noise fix? :)


I've stood a few hundred meters away from a Boeing 747 taking off. Even that noise is nowhere near as impressive as a naturally aspirated Formula One car at full throttle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1550
Location: Miami, Florida
pokerman wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I have nowhere near the engineering knowledge that you have but even I can see that the jewel in the engine is the MGU-H for fuel efficiency, turbo lag and overall power. These engines race on 105Kg of fuel, the proposed engine if it hopes to produce the same level of power will be racing on about 150Kg of fuel which also will greatly increase the starting weights of the cars, and this peak power is dependent on 320hp of electrical energy recovered from the braking system, this has been seen as push to pass power so it's obviously restricted in use plus I've also heard a lot of this energy will have to be used to overcome the turbo lag.

Here's the thing about doubling KERS. You know all that lifting and coasting people hate? Scrapping the MGU-H and getting more KERS means that drivers will have to coast a lot more because there are already some circuits where there isn't enough braking time to recharge it. The MGU-H can fill in for a lot of that at the moment, as well as all the other power and torque benefits it brings.

Here's the great irony. Some people would prefer an engine where the drivers are having to lift off more than an engine with more power and more throttle on time just because the lift and coast engine is less fuel efficient and makes more noise.

Also as I pointed out the cars will be much heavier and slower at the start of the races but the main concern like you say is that we want more noise apparently.

Regarding the noise aspect were is the greater revenue, is it in spectator attendance or TV viewing figures because as a telly watcher you can't even come close to be able to appreciate the noise aspect anyway, also have we not seen record crowds this year, were all these people that don't attend anymore because of the lack of noise, I see no mass walkout.

Wrong on both counts here.

Firstly, you're trading off all the weight from the ENTIRE MGU-H for fuel so the difference in weight wont much.

Second, the BIB… IF you're ever in South Florida I invite you to come watch a race in my house. You might want to bring ear plugs. ;)
Today most people have surround sounds of some sort, and many of us are life long audio aficionados and we take it very seriously. In my house you wont EVER get sound without turning on the sound system and even on it's default setting which is not loud at all, you will hear sounds you've likely never heard before. And my system is nothing compared to many peoples' setups.

Digital sound is so prevalent these days that every single movie and TV show is mastered with specialized systems like THX, so sound for the TV viewer is a bigger deal than you might imagine. And since MANY More tens of millions of people watch on TV as opposed to races, I'd say sound is extremely important, and lack there of may in fact be hurting the product.

In fact, from the first day these current hybrids raced on the track ViJay Mallya questioned What is this? This is not F1! while on the pit wall with his headphones resting on his shoulders.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
F1 MERCENARY wrote:


In fact, from the first day these current hybrids raced on the track ViJay Mallya questioned What is this? This is not F1!


He was of course 100% correct. The hybrid engines are most certainly NOT Formula One. They are a complete and total break from the history and tradition that F1 engines represented. That is why there is a unanimous appeal for change from those inside Formula One.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23695
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I have nowhere near the engineering knowledge that you have but even I can see that the jewel in the engine is the MGU-H for fuel efficiency, turbo lag and overall power. These engines race on 105Kg of fuel, the proposed engine if it hopes to produce the same level of power will be racing on about 150Kg of fuel which also will greatly increase the starting weights of the cars, and this peak power is dependent on 320hp of electrical energy recovered from the braking system, this has been seen as push to pass power so it's obviously restricted in use plus I've also heard a lot of this energy will have to be used to overcome the turbo lag.

Here's the thing about doubling KERS. You know all that lifting and coasting people hate? Scrapping the MGU-H and getting more KERS means that drivers will have to coast a lot more because there are already some circuits where there isn't enough braking time to recharge it. The MGU-H can fill in for a lot of that at the moment, as well as all the other power and torque benefits it brings.

Here's the great irony. Some people would prefer an engine where the drivers are having to lift off more than an engine with more power and more throttle on time just because the lift and coast engine is less fuel efficient and makes more noise.

Also as I pointed out the cars will be much heavier and slower at the start of the races but the main concern like you say is that we want more noise apparently.

Regarding the noise aspect were is the greater revenue, is it in spectator attendance or TV viewing figures because as a telly watcher you can't even come close to be able to appreciate the noise aspect anyway, also have we not seen record crowds this year, were all these people that don't attend anymore because of the lack of noise, I see no mass walkout.

Wrong on both counts here.

Firstly, you're trading off all the weight from the ENTIRE MGU-H for fuel so the difference in weight wont much.

Second, the BIB… IF you're ever in South Florida I invite you to come watch a race in my house. You might want to bring ear plugs. ;)
Today most people have surround sounds of some sort, and many of us are life long audio aficionados and we take it very seriously. In my house you wont EVER get sound without turning on the sound system and even on it's default setting which is not loud at all, you will hear sounds you've likely never heard before. And my system is nothing compared to many peoples' setups.

Digital sound is so prevalent these days that every single movie and TV show is mastered with specialized systems like THX, so sound for the TV viewer is a bigger deal than you might imagine. And since MANY More tens of millions of people watch on TV as opposed to races, I'd say sound is extremely important, and lack there of may in fact be hurting the product.

In fact, from the first day these current hybrids raced on the track ViJay Mallya questioned What is this? This is not F1! while on the pit wall with his headphones resting on his shoulders.

The MGU-H only weighs 10kg that would be offset just by the redesign of the engine which would need to be beefed up so it can rev 3000rpm higher.

Strange that someone who wears headphones misses the noise, I myself suffer with ear damage and tinnitus after years of noise abuse so noise fails to impress me anymore.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3008
There seems to be a lot of people on both sides stating their own opinion on what fans want as a near 100% global consensus. To that end, I thought it would probably aid that part of the discussion to try and get an indication of what fans want, and started a poll on the matter.

You can take part here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14642


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2877
pokerman wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Seems that the new proposals would encourage Ilmor and Cosworth to re-enter with their engines and even other independant manufacturers as suggested above by Pokerman.

Sort of diminishes the value of Ferrrari's threat to leave, for that matter it puts Mercedes' and Renault's protestations in a different perspective.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41886707

There seem to be conflicting arguments in that article. Ilmor and Cosworth are saying it would make it more affordable for other manufacturers to join, while Wolff is claiming it will substantially increase costs. They can't both be right


Isn't Wolff's point that for existing manufacturers have to redesign there current PU, so its a change of direction but the cost to start from scratch would be achievable where it wasn't possible before because of cost and complexity?


He is moaning about having to develop two engines a the same time. But surely that would always be the case since the regulations are changing? Wolff just wants an evolution of the current power units I guess, he does not want to see the MGU-H go. What a crybaby.

I'm not sure any of the engine manufacturers want to see it go when the goal is to develop engines with cutting edge technology?



There are outsiders well in favor of these proposed regulations. https://www.gpguide.com/News.aspx?artic ... BydWxlcw==

The current F1 engine manufacturers are just looking after their own interests. It probably cost them a ton of resources to develop the MGU-H already, so they would like to get more bang for their buck. In the case of Mercedes, their recovery system is probably key to their success, so of course they do not want to lose any part of it. It has little to do with being cutting edge. Again, what irks me is that Toto and company tell us that they want to keep the fans in mind and care about the sport but it's baloney. The only thing they care about is themselves and themselves only.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
There seems to be a lot of people on both sides stating their own opinion on what fans want as a near 100% global consensus. To that end, I thought it would probably aid that part of the discussion to try and get an indication of what fans want, and started a poll on the matter.

You can take part here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14642


Of course you know that your poll is not even remotely scientific. It is incapable of determining ANY result whatsoever. Nothing more than random noise can come from such unscientific polls. Your poll answers are heavily loaded and clearly fail at their stated goal.

It's easy, very very easy to find out what the fans want. All you have to do is look at Formula One itself. EVERY single person in power is stating in a clear, unequivocal voice that the current hybrid engines MUST change. There is not a single voice within Formula One arguing for the status quo. Not. One. Person.

Mercedes Benz may want the status quo, but their opinion is of course heavily biased as they have mastered the current formula. Their opinion is self serving and utterly irrelevant.

No team is arguing to keep the status quo. No driver is. The FIA has already proposed several rule changes that will somehow make these unpopular engines more acceptable for teams, drivers, and fans alike. We'll see how they work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:51 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1656
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
There seems to be a lot of people on both sides stating their own opinion on what fans want as a near 100% global consensus. To that end, I thought it would probably aid that part of the discussion to try and get an indication of what fans want, and started a poll on the matter.

You can take part here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14642


Of course you know that your poll is not even remotely scientific. It is incapable of determining ANY result whatsoever. Nothing more than random noise can come from such unscientific polls. Your poll answers are heavily loaded and clearly fail at their stated goal.

It's easy, very very easy to find out what the fans want. All you have to do is look at Formula One itself. EVERY single person in power is stating in a clear, unequivocal voice that the current hybrid engines MUST change. There is not a single voice within Formula One arguing for the status quo. Not. One. Person.

Mercedes Benz may want the status quo, but their opinion is of course heavily biased as they have mastered the current formula. Their opinion is self serving and utterly irrelevant.

No team is arguing to keep the status quo. No driver is. The FIA has already proposed several rule changes that will somehow make these unpopular engines more acceptable for teams, drivers, and fans alike. We'll see how they work.


Do you ever read yourself?

Every single person is stating that the engines must change, but Mercedes want the status quo, but no team is arguing to keep the status quo.

However unscientific his poll may be, and I've stated my own concerns with it in his thread, its a hell of a lot more scientific than you repeatedly shouting that everyone absolutely agrees with what you're saying and using complete strawman arguments to support "more noise please".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3008
Ennis wrote:
Do you ever read yourself?

Every single person is stating that the engines must change, but Mercedes want the status quo, but no team is arguing to keep the status quo.

However unscientific his poll may be, and I've stated my own concerns with it in his thread, its a hell of a lot more scientific than you repeatedly shouting that everyone absolutely agrees with what you're saying and using complete strawman arguments to support "more noise please".

When someone says a poll is not at all scientific, then it draws a great deal of doubt on that person's understanding of what science is.

The purpose of the poll wasn't to say "this is what fans want" but rather to point out that fans want very different things. The discussion in the thread about the disagreements of the options allowed, etc... only furthers supports that hypothesis.

I mean, when someone says something like "100% of people want noisier engines" you only need to find one person to disprove that theory. But even taking that to mean "A significant majority want noisier engines before anything else" can be shown to be doubtful.

Clearly, the sample size of the PF1 forum is way too small to gather anything wide reaching, and even if the numbers were larger, the PF1 forum only covers F1 fans who want to argue on the Internet about Formula 1, so doesn't cover the majority of fans who just tune in to watch the race on TV without having to put in too much effort.

The problem here is that we often have the habit of being in our own little bubble, full of people who also exist in that bubble and when all of those people agree with us extrapolate that everyone outside of the bubble must agree with us too.

The Pf1 forum is small,but it's much bigger than our own individual, personal bubbles. I would tend to agree that an informed F1 fan will be more likely to support the new hybrid engines than a less informed one (and after seeing the ignorance that passes as journalism in F1 publications about engines, it's not surprising) - however the more informed fans are those who care more about the issues.

Most people watch the F1 on the TV, and on the TV you get no sense of what the engines are in the cars. I remember the first time I went to a race live and it wasn't just 'louder' it was a different sound to what you experienced on TV. A V8 on TV vs a V8 in real life was a bigger difference than a V8 on TV and a V6 on TV.

I think I saw that 150 million people watch F1 on TV. If you maxed out every venue with a different person then that means more the 98% of people don't watch an F1 race live. For all our blustering on here, or arguing on Twitter, or agreeing with our F1 buddies in a WhatsApp group - the casual F1 fans outnumber us all by a high margin (and I am not saying ALL of that 98% are casual,but more than half will be).

The poll wasn't asking people to say "I care about power but don't care about noise" - it would be the dream to have a car that can thunder around the race track,generating 2000bhp and do a race distance on 50kg of fuel and have the car only weigh 400kg. It's to say "if you were to rank those engine qualities, which would you put highest"

And the point of the poll wasn't to prove what fans want,just to demonstrate that fans want different things - so speaking in absolutes is nonsense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20902
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Ennis wrote:
Do you ever read yourself?

Every single person is stating that the engines must change, but Mercedes want the status quo, but no team is arguing to keep the status quo.

However unscientific his poll may be, and I've stated my own concerns with it in his thread, its a hell of a lot more scientific than you repeatedly shouting that everyone absolutely agrees with what you're saying and using complete strawman arguments to support "more noise please".

When someone says a poll is not at all scientific, then it draws a great deal of doubt on that person's understanding of what science is.

The purpose of the poll wasn't to say "this is what fans want" but rather to point out that fans want very different things. The discussion in the thread about the disagreements of the options allowed, etc... only furthers supports that hypothesis.

I mean, when someone says something like "100% of people want noisier engines" you only need to find one person to disprove that theory. But even taking that to mean "A significant majority want noisier engines before anything else" can be shown to be doubtful.

Clearly, the sample size of the PF1 forum is way too small to gather anything wide reaching, and even if the numbers were larger, the PF1 forum only covers F1 fans who want to argue on the Internet about Formula 1, so doesn't cover the majority of fans who just tune in to watch the race on TV without having to put in too much effort.

The problem here is that we often have the habit of being in our own little bubble, full of people who also exist in that bubble and when all of those people agree with us extrapolate that everyone outside of the bubble must agree with us too.

The Pf1 forum is small,but it's much bigger than our own individual, personal bubbles. I would tend to agree that an informed F1 fan will be more likely to support the new hybrid engines than a less informed one (and after seeing the ignorance that passes as journalism in F1 publications about engines, it's not surprising) - however the more informed fans are those who care more about the issues.

Most people watch the F1 on the TV, and on the TV you get no sense of what the engines are in the cars. I remember the first time I went to a race live and it wasn't just 'louder' it was a different sound to what you experienced on TV. A V8 on TV vs a V8 in real life was a bigger difference than a V8 on TV and a V6 on TV.

I think I saw that 150 million people watch F1 on TV. If you maxed out every venue with a different person then that means more the 98% of people don't watch an F1 race live. For all our blustering on here, or arguing on Twitter, or agreeing with our F1 buddies in a WhatsApp group - the casual F1 fans outnumber us all by a high margin (and I am not saying ALL of that 98% are casual,but more than half will be).

The poll wasn't asking people to say "I care about power but don't care about noise" - it would be the dream to have a car that can thunder around the race track,generating 2000bhp and do a race distance on 50kg of fuel and have the car only weigh 400kg. It's to say "if you were to rank those engine qualities, which would you put highest"

And the point of the poll wasn't to prove what fans want,just to demonstrate that fans want different things - so speaking in absolutes is nonsense.

BIB: I would suggest it may well be the opposite.

I'd hazard a guess that most uninformed fans don't care what powers the cars. If they did care, they'd investigate and become informed! They are more likely to just want to watch the fastest cars being driven by the best drivers (for the purposes of uninformed motivation, let's please not get hung up on which drivers are "best"), but the actual tech being used will likely not make that much difference. So an uninformed fan will likely just want the fastest PU around, and that would most likely end up being a hybrid anyway

It's informed fans who, almost by definition, care about the nuts and bolts of F1. And then we move beyond simply performance and start to assess the impact in other areas, be it cost, noise, technical complexity etc. And since it's clear from this poll and other discussions that there's no overwhelming consensus one way or the other, it's hard to say that an informed fan would be more likely to choose the hybrids than an uninformed one


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ennis and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group