F1 will burst like subprime bubble

[xpensive]

Pneumatic valves is a poor xample to use the banning-tool if you ask me Pup, when this is an ingenious development to get rid of the hysteresis in the spring-action, which is energy-saving in itself. Surprised not to see it on road-cars yet though.

It is ingenious, but it's also a dead-end in the sense that, as you point out, it will never be of use outside of racing or some specialized application. The system is too complicated, and there's just no practical advantage to screaming around in your mini-van at 20k rpm. Fun, perhaps.

Sure, if you're not looking for road-relevance or concerned about rev limits, then I'm all for it. Bring on electromagnetic valves, too.

I didn't point out anything of the kind, a pneumatic valve-system is not really complicated, why I'm sure you will see it on roadcars soon for other reasons than increased Rpm.

Electromagnetic valves is a technical dead end, when the power-consumption of the spools is simply far to power-consuming.

[Pup]

Fair enough, X. Time will tell.

On the EM valves, I'm thinking of Renault's rumored system from a few years back that used EM to control the pneumatics. It's probably called something else, but I was (and still am) too lazy to look it up. That system eliminated the cams altogether, which of course has a wide range of potential benefits outside of high revs. So if that were made feasible, then I'd see far more potential for it outside of sport.

To be perfectly honest with you, though, I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that electric motors will beat any of this other stuff to the mass market.

We'll have some great threads here when that happens.

[xpensive]

That electromagnetic Renault rumour was most probably a publicity stunt for their wide-angle V10. Which didn't work either btw.

[Chaparral]

And so you advocate what - if your saying it needs to parallel marketing by the participating manufacturer thats fine am I reading you correctly - and if so I agree V8 V10 V12 rotary whatever - so a open configuration would suit manufacturers which is basically what Roebuck is saying and I agree - road relevancy has NOTHING to do with F1 ALMS LMP NASCAR it never has - talk to the designers/engineers/team owners whatever - Mosely and the FIA may work under that banner but F1 has nothing to do with it at all nor do the other formulas around the globe and why should it - racing should be racing on all levels - this should not be a proving ground for the FIA road tactics - for gods sake have you forgotten what real racing is about building a better mouse trap than your competition and winning - take a life check ace.

Chap, I think it's just in how you approach the issue. We all know that the specific bits and pieces that go into an F1 car have little if anything to do with the family sedan, particularly if you're driving a Holden. But we also know that some broad ideas do eventually filter down; and because of that, it isn't irrational to think that we could gently guide the sport into a position where more of that might happen.

But more importantly, we also have to recognize the suspension of belief that leads us to think, for example, that the V10 that BMW advertised a few years back as being based on their F1 engine actually was in some way. It isn't nearly so important that there is actual road relevance, as it is that there is an honest enough of a veneer that it becomes marketable.

Pup - lets clear one thing up - I wouldnt be seen dead in a GM car (Holden) thats sacrilige being the good Roman Catholic I am just for your info (dont tell anyone) but I have 3 modes of transport 1. Ford AUII XR8 Falcon with a 5 litre Boss 302 - a RX7 13b turbo and last of all a hybrid K2 Rickman framed 860cc Yoshimura kitted Honda 4
Your point on 'suspension of belief etc' - no fan or follower of BMW believed it was in anyway related to the F1 power plant - marketing is primarily about 'perception' thats first and foremost which is what your saying. My point is/was that BMW and other manufacturers felt the 'spec' V8 engine represented absolutely no value to the brand marketing - and theyre correct

[xpensive]

To set things straight, when BMW decided to abandon Williams and buy Sauber in 2005, the 2.4 "spec" V8 was already official.

[Chaparral]

To set things straight, when BMW decided to abandon Williams and buy Sauber in 2005, the 2.4 "spec" V8 was already official.

Well that goes against what I remember - there were howls of protest reported in the motor sport press when it was announced and the loudest was BMW - enlighten me as it was diagonally different to their 'road technology' and marketing

[xpensive]

BMW decided to buy Sauber mid 2005, which left Williams with Cosworth. The 2.4 V8 "spec" rule came in effect as from 2006.

I also remember that BMW protested the "spec" V8 rule, when the V10 suited the marketing of their premium cars much better.
All I'm saying is that BMW knew about it when they decided to become a "constructor".

[WhiteBlue]

The V8 was decided in December 2004. If I remember right it was announced the 12 of December. It was done in a rush. In order to come into effect for 2006 the decision had to be taken before January 1st 2005. Rule changes under the old concord agreement had to be fixed one year ahead of implementation. Implementation was January 1st 2006.

The BMW board took the Sauber decision sometime in spring 2005. Rumors were already rife about it in February because Theissen was traveling more to Hinwil than working in Munich. The transaction was announced after the Indy GP at the end of June.

The rational for BMW to buy Sauber was influenced by the similarity of the engines. The thinking was that pure engine performance was not going to provide a fast car. They had clearly had one of the best V10 engines for 5 years but little success to show for that. Only a superior package was going to give them a winning car. They thought that the necessary integration would be easier to do in a team they owned. It went like a machine. All the performance targets were met over a three year period.

They had also thought that the FIA would be able to implement road relevant technologies and hybrids. We know that the second part of this plan failed. KERS was shot down by FOTA and aerodynamic technology remained the deciding factor for race wins. F1 aero wasn't doing anything for the road cars and Theissen could not justify the program when the redundencies hit in 2008 and 2009.

[Pup]

Regardless of the timing, Chap's point is valid. To BMW, the loss of the V10 was a big hit, both on the field and in the market.

On the other hand, it wasn't long afterward that BMW decided to hedge their bets by introducing a small block turbo to their mix.

Which provided some recompense for us old SAAB enthusiasts, when the turbo 335 turned out faster than the M3.

[ISLAMATRON]

A majority of the teams wanted the 2.4L V-8's, not every team is going to get their way, they have never been unanimous.

The FIA gave them many options, A 2.7L V-10, rev limited V-10's, fuel limited V-10's and the 2.4L V-8, that most of the teams agreed upon.

The rest of the restrictions were put in place for cost saving... The teams tried many different iterations of the V-10 but pretty much all landed on the best solution with the same bore sizes, V angles and such so they standardized them. The mounting points and crank center height was made standard so that the independent teams could easily change engines without a huge penalty.

Even with all that was standerdized I remember quite a bit of difference between the different 2006 V-8's and that has carried over through 2009 where the Merc lump is considered the cream of the crop.

All this jumping up and down about "spec" racing is outright foolishness, The teams have allways migrated towards the best solution, when it was the DFV, everybody who wanted to win ran then, same with turbos, then with the V-10's until everything else was banned.

So what if Ferrari wanted to run a V-12, they still came behind the turbo's & then the V-10's and were not a factor. later on those running the V-8s were backmarkers anyway... engine diversity or close fields? you choose.

Regulations or not with a 2.4L normally aspirated formula everyone(who wanted to win) would be running a V-8 of the same bore size & V angle.

Never in the history of F1 have they had a totally open engine formula in terms of displacement.

[xpensive]

I wonder how many V10s BMW has sold since its introduction anyway?

Sometimes the car-companies marketng strategy is really strange. When Ford spent 200 MEUR a year on the F1 team, in order to promote the sales of 50 000 Jaguar cars, that's 4000 EUR per car sold.

Or when BMW in Sweden were advertising something like "BMW needs turbo as much as Concorde needs a propeller". This was of course aimed at the Saab Turbo, but also done in 1984, the year after Nelson Piquet became WDC in a Brabham-BMW turbo.