[Tech Issue] Teams closing in on 1500cc turbo engines for 2013?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Curiously you guys must be talking to a different bunch of fans to me,

I talk to very much a similar bunch of guys that you do.

But I don't think that for one moment they make up anywhere near the vast majority of Bernie's viewers.

All the teams have built their own suspension systems, but only Red Bull's has anything on it that's noteworthy and still it costs the teams millions to produce each one. Engines still cost a small fortune to produce and yet barely any development work is done on them. X-Trac make a gearbox that's probably 90-95% as good as any other teams gearbox for a fraction of the cost and no one talks about gearboxes.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by herowassenna

No disrespect fellas, but what exactly does any of this offer people who want to watch motor racing?
I understand the necessity for Green issues to be considered, but Briatore was right all those years ago.
No-one watches F1 to be dazzled by technology. What difference does it make to the show?
Autosport today had a section about specific designs of F1 cars this season. Red Bulls pull rod suspension and diffuser. Ferrari having angled their engine/ gearbox by 3.5 degree.
If I'm standing by the side of the track, i can't see any of this. I've been watching the races and again, can't see any of this.

But watching Alonso and Hamilton constantly over taking cars through the field...
Or seeing Alonso driving with gearbox issues that only on board cameras picked up the problem. Awesome.

Funny, after some sessions or races, they interview a team member. They ask about the teams emotions or how the driver felt crossing the line. Not once do they ask about how specifically their engine, gearbox, out board mirrors, duct or their latest suspension geometry affected the race.

Well, the thread title is about the engine choice to be made over the next few years. An entirely technical issue, which the majority of fans would have no interest in if your statement is correct. Should the thread therefor be deleted as being irrelevant to the F1 forum?

[herowassenna]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Well, the thread title is about the engine choice to be made over the next few years. An entirely technical issue, which the majority of fans would have no interest in if your statement is correct. Should the thread therefor be deleted as being irrelevant to the F1 forum?

I understand your point but I'm struggling to get excited about these turbo engines.
I witnessed them originally in the 80's and it was numbing to be standing opposite the pits at Brands Hatch and feel a F1 car being powered by a 1,200hp engine actually shaking the ground as it drove past.
It was spine tingling hearing the Ferrari V12, the Honda V10 and V12, the Lamborghini V12, beautiful shrieking units.
Sadly, regulations and emission controls change technology constantly.
I may well leave the future F1 races to watching on TV. Just attend Thorough Bred GP until they're banned forever.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by herowassenna

I understand your point but I'm struggling to get excited about these turbo engines.
I witnessed them originally in the 80's and it was numbing to be standing opposite the pits at Brands Hatch and feel a F1 car being powered by a 1,200hp engine actually shaking the ground as it drove past.
It was spine tingling hearing the Ferrari V12, the Honda V10 and V12, the Lamborghini V12, beautiful shrieking units.
Sadly, regulations and emission controls change technology constantly.
I may well leave the future F1 races to watching on TV. Just attend Thorough Bred GP until they're banned forever.

The turbos of that era were 1.5l (inline 4 or v6)- where's the difference between then and this proposal?

I know what you mean about ground shaking after seeing a 93 Benetton going rounds Brands on a demo run. Think that was a v12 normally aspirated engine.

[duke_toaster]

In 1993 Benetton used Ford V8s. That year only the Larousse Lamborghinis and the Ferrari engines were V12.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by herowassenna

No disrespect fellas, but what exactly does any of this offer people who want to watch motor racing?
I understand the necessity for Green issues to be considered, but Briatore was right all those years ago.

It's obviouus that you don't, because everytime the issue is brought up in any way, you're the one constantly railing agaisnt it. Show me a V12 that can make a similar amout of power and has a similar fuel mileage, and on top of that is as small and as light, and I'll jump on board with you.

No-one watches F1 to be dazzled by technology. What difference does it make to the show?
Autosport today had a section about specific designs of F1 cars this season. Red Bulls pull rod suspension and diffuser. Ferrari having angled their engine/ gearbox by 3.5 degree.
If I'm standing by the side of the track, i can't see any of this. I've been watching the races and again, can't see any of this.

What ********. I guarantee you 90 percent of the Americans watch it for that very reason. As a matter of fact, F1 wouldn't be exciting at all if not for that aspect.

[herowassenna]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

It's obviouus that you don't, because everytime the issue is brought up in any way, you're the one constantly railing agaisnt it. Show me a V12 that can make a similar amout of power and has a similar fuel mileage, and on top of that is as small and as light, and I'll jump on board with you.

What ********. I guarantee you 90 percent of the Americans watch it for that very reason. As a matter of fact, F1 wouldn't be exciting at all if not for that aspect.

1) You're missing my point. I read somewhere that a Jumbo on take off burns more fuel than the entire F1 grid in a season. F1 is about the show,. The technology behind it, whilst space age, actually doesn't give anything to the spectators.
At no stage during Australia, Malaysia or China was the focus on the cars, purely on the driving on display. In fact, Bahrain caused people to question the efficiency of the cars now.
Isn't it significant that heading the forums every race weekend is "Driver of the Race" and "Rate the race"
At no stage have I seen a forum asking people to rate the technology...

Autosport is the biggest motorsport weekly on sale in the UK. Their sales figures may be 150,000 per week. From a population of 60 odd million, that's poor. Viewing figures for races in the UK may be 6 or 7,000,000, so we're talking a tiny percentage who actually care...

2) Regarding the 90% of Americans, are we talking 90% of the USA population or 90% of the F1 fans in the US? It's common knowledge that the biggest form of motorsport in the US is Nascar. Hardly a bedrock of technology.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

As a matter of fact, F1 wouldn't be exciting at all if not for that aspect.

I guarantee you that at least 90% of F1 fans won't have a clue what the significance of '98mm' or '165mm' is to an F1 engine without first looking it up on google.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by herowassenna

1) You're missing my point. I read somewhere that a Jumbo on take off burns more fuel than the entire F1 grid in a season. F1 is about the show,. The technology behind it, whilst space age, actually doesn't give anything to the spectator

Joe Saward's blog is were you would have read that originally, and I repeated it here...The amount of fuel burned by a Jumbo Jet on take off that is!

America landed on the Moon, I think that is quite an achievement don't you? even if the technology used in NASCAR is not...I have been inside, (and I mean inside) NASA JPL it's rather impressive to say the least..

[Marbot]

60% of F1s 'carbon footprint' is for the running costs incurred by such things as wind tunnels etc. Fuel used during the season amounts to a tiny fraction of F1s costs.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

America landed on the Moon, I think that is quite an achievement don't you? even if the technology used in NASCAR is not...I have been inside, (and I mean inside) NASA JPL it's rather impressive to say the least..

And for all that impressiveness, people soon got bored of moon landings and switched channels to watch things like baseball instead.

Apollo 13 really summed up what it is that most people wanted to watch once Neil Armstrong had done the business. More films, books and documentaries were produced for that particular mission than for any other mission before or after. Maybe because it was more about the men than the machines?

[herowassenna]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

America landed on the Moon, I think that is quite an achievement don't you? even if the technology used in NASCAR is not...I have been inside, (and I mean inside) NASA JPL it's rather impressive to say the least..

I don't have a problem with technology. My reference to space age is regarding work that Ferrari and, I believe, Mclaren have done for Nasa regarding material usage. After all F1 and composite materials is so far ahead of the aero industry now.
I also have a plasma TV and whilst I read articles before buying it about the difference between LCD and Plasma, when I switch the damn thing on, all I care about is the picture I'm watching.
I get in my car, and nowadays, they have more computing power than what was needed to land on the moon, yet I don't need to know how that works, just that it does reliably.
I take out my iphone and make calls all over the planet. I understand something about mobile networks and their set up, I work in the telecoms industry, but again, I need to know the network works. Not how.
Whether F1 goes green with 1.5 litre turbo engines running 10,000 or 12,000rpm or what injection system they are using, ultimately makes little difference to what I watch.
There are people who are fascinated by technology and need to know how everything works. I have no issue with that, but personally, it's a tool.

[herowassenna]

Originally Posted by Marbot

And for all that impressiveness, people soon got bored of moon landings and switched channels to watch things like baseball instead.

Apollo 13 really summed up what it is that most people wanted to watch once Neil Armstrong had done the business. More films, books and documentaries were produced for that particular mission than for any other mission before or after. Maybe because it was more about the men than the machines?

Great point. To extend that, the shuttle I watched live the first time it flew and landed. Brilliant, but it became a reliable workhorse. It never got much coverage till the tragedy in 1986. The same happened again, until it disintegrated over Texas a few years ago, and suddenly interest rose.
I watched a documentary which was fascinating about the 86 launch and how one engineer tried to get NASA to stop the launch. Temperature that morning was -11degrees, and he was certain the O rings on the booster rockets would fail on the launch pad. He was relieved when it cleared the tower and assumed luck had been on their side...
NASA had run a campaign to take a teacher into space, so as to regenerate interest in the shuttle once more

[wnut]

Originally Posted by herowassenna

..........Whether F1 goes green with 1.5 litre turbo engines running 10,000 or 12,000rpm or what injection system they are using, ultimately makes little difference to what I watch.
There are people who are fascinated by technology and need to know how everything works. I have no issue with that, but personally, it's a tool.

This is the whole point. I am fascinated by the technology, but the application of the technology is the bottom line.
F1 is about racing, and if you bring a dragster to an F1 race it is not the right tool for road racing.
The current crop of cars are great technology in outwash wings and aero aides, but the formula is wrong and despite the hype surrounding them they are very limited in their primary application which is racing!
Therefore lousy tools!

[Marbot]

As I said in a post earlier. Most of F1s 'waste' takes place away from the GPs. Wind tunnels use an extraordinary amount of power to start them up and keep them running. Usually requiring a quick phone call to the local power station every time they need to do it. Getting rid of useless aero development would go a long way to making F1 greener. Virgin could be on to a winner here.

[Rgms320]

The idea of a green F1 isn't the amount of energy and resources directly consumed by racing operations and manufacture, it's about the contributions that F1's development can add to the green state-of-the-art in automotive technology.

It would be absolutely ridiculous to demand that the cars get 30 miles to the gallon of renewable fuel on the track, or move the show from track to track using sail-powered freighters or horse-drawn barges.

And having F1's development so rule-restricted that it's a veritable spec series makes such green development a sham. If they're serious about green development, and not just paying it lip service, they need to open up the rules enough to give the developers some elbow room.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Rgms320

The idea of a green F1 isn't the amount of energy and resources directly consumed by racing operations and manufacture, it's about the contributions that F1's development can add to the green state-of-the-art in automotive technology.

Agreed, but why waste any resources on irrelevant aero?

Then you have to ask yourself: Is F1 the best platform for 'green' technology anyway?

Since leaving F1, Honda and others have already gone far beyond KERS and fossil fuel engines. Probably to a point where F1 wouldn't be relevant to them, no matter what the regulations were.

The FIA currently run a racing series called the 'FIA Alternative Energies Cup'.

"I PURPOSE OF EVENTS
The purpose of these Events is the promotion of environmentally-friendly and in some cases commercially suitable solar and/or electrically powered vehicles, as well as vehicles powered by alternative energies. In line with the pioneering nature of automobile sport, countless technical concepts are tested through competition, the aim of such events is to demonstrate to the general public that vehicles powered by solar, electrical and alternative energies can give good performance and can thus be perfectly suitable for everyday use."

Does the FIA need another one?

[Rgms320]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Agreed, but why waste any resources on irrelevant aero?

Then you have to ask yourself: Is F1 the best platform for 'green' technology anyway?

Exactly!

When automotive green technology has far exceeded what the restrictive F1 development rules might allow, there is virtually no chance that anything developed by and for F1 will have any relevance, anything at all, to automotive green technology. As I mentioned in the 2011 KERS thread, F1's green efforts would be equally served, and be equally as honest, by plastering the cars with "We Got Green!" decals.

Right now, F1 spends many millions on pointless development efforts. To me, today's rules make a mockery of F1's stated purpose (or at least what the stated purpose used to be when I started following the series). I'm afraid that today's stated purpose would allude to power grabs and lining Bernie's and CVC's pockets.

A green F1? Yeah, right.

I could go on, but I think I'll stop here before I start turning the air blue, and smashing my poor, innocent keyboard with heavy objects.