National Baloney

[WhiteBlue]

I see the eventual losses from a high revving multi cylinder engine the same way you see the inefficiency of the open wheel model. Marginal in regard the objective of the sport - which is to run fast and provide a show.

[...] The engines have become smaller and and smaller as technology developed to higher fuel efficiency. So the quest for higher efficiency is also a valued tradition of F1. It shows how ignorant your argument is of the true history of F1. The GP championship was European in it's root and it should stay true to it's traditions. It is the American way to waste a lot of fuel with large and under developed engines. F1 should not follow that path.

[rjsa]

That is one of you apple and banana comparisons. The open wheel formula is the tradition of F1. It goes back over decades and is in the DNA of the sport. Engines on the other hand have changed quite a lot over the decades of F1 and GP racing. One thing is a common theme that runs through the F1 history as a common identification. The engines have become smaller and and smaller as technology developed to higher fuel efficiency. So the quest for higher efficiency is also a valued tradition of F1. It shows how ignorant your argument is of the true history of F1. The GP championship was European in it's root and it should stay true to it's traditions. It is the American way to waste a lot of fuel with large and under developed engines. F1 should not follow that path.

This is not true. Engines got smaller and smaller on regulators' attempt to curb power. Nobody ever gave a damn about energy efficiency outside the fact that it would result in lighter cars when you couldn't refuel.

The european manufacturers - the germans and the italians - might not be liking the new I4. And a 2.4L V8 (or a 20K RPM V10) is diametrically opposite to a 455 cu IN american V8. Talk about apples and bannanas.

I see that you like the I4 and all the acronyms invloved, but justifying it's use in F1 for reasons other than meeting some marketting/PC agendas and a (failed) attempt to bring new manufcturers (VWAG) is wrong.

[hardingfv32]

WhiteBlue

"It is the American way to waste a lot of fuel with large and under developed engines. F1 should not follow that path."

I have been saving this NASCAR vs F1 engine article for no reason, but now I have one. You will be surprised how efficient the NASCAR engines are.

http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_te ... _to_f1.htm

Brian

[WhiteBlue]

It is the American way to waste a lot of fuel with large and under developed engines. F1 should not follow that path.

I have been saving this NASCAR vs F1 engine article for no reason, but now I have one. You will be surprised how efficient the NASCAR engines are.

Brian

I was not talking about racing cars in particular when I compared the mileage of American and European cars. I hope I don't need to quote any sources to demonstrate that the typical American car has and had a lot less mileage than the average European or Japanese car. Almost half of the Europeans who bought new cars last year are driving turbo charged engines. The American automotive industry typically goes bust when fuel prices are reflecting the reality of "peak oil" because nobody cares about the energy waste the country has cultivated for many decades. There is no country on earth that wasted and still wastes so much energy per head as America. This is indisputable.

Just have a look what is the prime market for Ferrari's big capacity engined cars! It is the USA. If you talk with a turbo expert which country is slowest to embrace fuel efficient turbo technology it is always the USA.

People there religiously believe that torque from turbo charging is different from torque by big displacement engines. They think that turbo diesels are made in hell and should only be used in ships and locomotives. No wonder that they are dead against all progress in power train technology.

I'm aware that there are some Americans who are different and I apologise to them for having a general look at things, but the few do not tip the scale. The majority dictates the market trends that generate the economic impact, and they love their wasting.

[djos]

I was not talking about racing cars in particular when I compared the mileage of American and European cars. I hope I don't need to quote any sources to demonstrate that the typical American car has and had a lot less mileage than the average European or Japanese car. Almost half of the Europeans who bought new cars last year are driving turbo charged engines. The American automotive industry typically goes bust when fuel prices are reflecting the reality of "peak oil" because nobody cares about the energy waste the country has cultivated for many decades. There is no country on earth that wasted and still wastes so much energy per head as America. This is indisputable.

Just have a look what is the prime market for Ferrari's big capacity engined cars! It is the USA. If you talk with a turbo expert which country is slowest to embrace fuel efficient turbo technology it is always the USA.

People there religiously believe that torque from turbo charging is different from torque by big displacement engines. They think that turbo diesels are made in hell and should only be used in ships and locomotives. No wonder that they are dead against all progress in power train technology.

I'm aware that there are some Americans who are different and I apologise to them for having a general look at things, but the few do not tip the scale. The majority dictates the market trends that generate the economic impact, and they love their wasting.

You have no idea what you are talking about WB so keep your stupid euro centric opinion to yourself!!!

[WhiteBlue]

The idea that that a single turbo I4 has a higher potential peak power than a twin turbo V6 to the same regs is ludicrous. The V6 could run higher revs and higher boost, both because of the increased cylinder count. Not to mention it would sound and look much better. Also, don't try to claim the V6 couldn't run more boost. More cylinders at the same displacment spreads out the stress and pressure. Not to mention the higher revs from lighter pistons and con rods.

You haven't paid attention to the debate. We were discussing this under the premisses of the published details of restricted fuel loads and fuel flow for 2013. None of your points consider the efficiency disadvantages of a V6 against the I4 under those circumstances.

And the stupid remark about wasting gas being the American way, I don't know where to start when you accuse other people of being old fashioned or closed-minded and follow it up with such a stupid bigoted remark. America, like every country in the world, bases their driving habits on a balance their needs & income, and fuel efficiency is probably third. Your problem seems to lie in the fact that America has higher incomes and lower petrol prices.Or, in other words jealousy.

Instead of trying to find bigotry where it doesn't exist you should focus on the facts. No country uses as much energy per head as the USA and no country has a fleet of automobiles with an average mileage as low as the USA. Those are facts. To call this waste when more efficient vehicle and engine technology has been around for decades is fully justified. The US situation is not caused by a balance of their citizens needs, income and driving habits as you seem to think but from their fuel taxation which is ridiculously low compared to other countries that have developed more efficient automobiles. The taxation is decided by the peoples vote in a democratic system and the recorded policies show that the USA historically prefer to waste fuel vs potection of the environment. Those are facts and the facts are not stupid. Stupid are only people who don't recognize when they are being manipulated by loaded language.

[hecti]

You have no idea what you are talking about WB so keep your stupid euro centric opinion to yourself!!!

=D> =D>

There comes a time when you [WB] just need to let go of something... It seems most people are against the new engine formula, myself included, so i think we should all move along and hope that the v8 has a couple more years before we see some ridiculous fuel saving formula, unless the fia rule makers decided to bring back an unlimited engine formula that only limits the amount of fuel allowed in the race, no flow limit, no required #of cylinders, maybe just a 2.4liter capacity limit. bring back engineering creativity and diversity

[flynfrog]

Instead of trying to find bigotry where it doesn't exist you should focus on the facts.

Sure us Americans love burning fuel for fun much the same way all Germans love to take over France. Look at the facts. Countries that have over taken France.

1. Germany

Or the way all Germans loves October fest and getting drunk. Countries with October fest.

1. Germany

I suppose Ill have to sell of my TDI Golf for a mustang to fit in.

Don't blame us for your ridiculous taxes on fuel. Last I checked we had about as much National park area as your country did total. This does not include all of the private owned forest wilderness ect.

Area of land[15] 84,000,000 acres 340,000 km2
Area of oceans, lakes, reservoirs[15] 4,502,644 acres 18,222 km2
Length of perennial rivers and streams[15] 85,049 mi 136,873 km


Germany is 357,021 sq km

[riff_raff]

The whole argument over fuel efficiency in F1 is completely academic. The actual amount of fuel burned by f1 cars during a race event is negligible compared to the amount of energy expended manufacturing the cars, transporting the cars/teams/equipment/hospitality facilities to and from the race venues, etc. Heck, consider the amount of diesel and jet fuel that is burned just transporting the race fuel itself halfway around the globe.

"Instead of trying to find bigotry where it doesn't exist you should focus on the facts. No country uses as much energy per head as the USA and no country has a fleet of automobiles with an average mileage as low as the USA. Those are facts. To call this waste when more efficient vehicle and engine technology has been around for decades is fully justified. The US situation is not caused by a balance of their citizens needs, income and driving habits as you seem to think but from their fuel taxation which is ridiculously low compared to other countries that have developed more efficient automobiles. The taxation is decided by the peoples vote in a democratic system and the recorded policies show that the USA historically prefer to waste fuel vs potection of the environment."

WhiteBlue,

I would disagree with your above comments, and they disregard relevant facts. Yes, the US is a large consumer of energy on a per-capita basis. But the US also uses that energy more efficiently than any other economy on earth. The US accounts for less than 20% of the world's energy consumption, yet it produces over 25% of the world's economic output.

As for protection of the environment, the toughest automotive emissions standards in the world are those of my home state California. Which is still part of the United States last time I checked.

Regarding the silly notion that the high, confiscatory taxation rates on fuel in some countries has led to more efficient automobiles, this is also misguided. The US is, and has been, a leader in technologies that make automobiles cleaner and more efficient. US companies pioneered the catalytic converter, the airbag, the digital ECU, ABS, etc. In fact, most of the "efficient" automobiles that you seem so impressed with cannot even be sold in the US, because their lightweight structures are too flimsy to meet US crash standards.

Regards,
riff_raff

[donskar]

LOL, those roughly match the number of road relevant F1 cars, don't they? How many did you count? 2? The AU and the V6 ferrari?

Yeah, that is why I never liked KERS, because it is incorporated on the grounds that it is 'road car relevant,' but someone has pointed out elsewhere on this forum that R&D of these car manufacturers eclipses their F1 budgets- so what is the point? Reeks of a PR stunt.

IMO F1 has no obligation to be 'road car relevant,' because there are fundamental differences in purpose between race cars and road cars (talk about apples and bananas). Now if something comes along that is incidental, I applaud it: like paddle shifters or any of the other innovations. But to *require* innovation along the lines of road cars is to stifle the creativity of engineers and diminish from what F1 is about: HIGH PERFORMANCE CAR RACING.

This "relevancy requirement" is therefore unnecessary (if the R&D statistic I cited above is true), and causes F1 to reek of BS because all these convoluted regulations are supposedly pure in intent, but really manipulate viewer's perceptions to suit business agendas (more $$).

As pointed out before, we need to implement water-powered cars, boats, planes, etc. where the waste truly occurs: in daily travel (transport to and from races, shipping, etc.); and let F1 be F1.

Moderators, PLEASE ban this guy -- at least from this particular thread -- there's no place for common sense in this discussion!
BTW: I work for Toyota. We are told by reliable people (not marketing shills) that Toyota's R&D budget is $1 million per hour, 24 X 365. (I have stated this previously.) Now how can engineers whose background and focus is on performance, working with a TINY % of Toyota's (or GM's or Ford's) budget do a better job than engineers focused solely on issues of efficiency and environmental quality? They can't.

[rjsa]

LOL, those roughly match the number of road relevant F1 cars, don't they? How many did you count? 2? The AU and the V6 ferrari?

Yeah, that is why I never liked KERS, because it is incorporated on the grounds that it is 'road car relevant,' but someone has pointed out elsewhere on this forum that R&D of these car manufacturers eclipses their F1 budgets- so what is the point? Reeks of a PR stunt.

IMO F1 has no obligation to be 'road car relevant,' because there are fundamental differences in purpose between race cars and road cars (talk about apples and bananas). Now if something comes along that is incidental, I applaud it: like paddle shifters or any of the other innovations. But to *require* innovation along the lines of road cars is to stifle the creativity of engineers and diminish from what F1 is about: HIGH PERFORMANCE CAR RACING.

This "relevancy requirement" is therefore unnecessary (if the R&D statistic I cited above is true), and causes F1 to reek of BS because all these convoluted regulations are supposedly pure in intent, but really manipulate viewer's perceptions to suit business agendas (more $$).

As pointed out before, we need to implement water-powered cars, boats, planes, etc. where the waste truly occurs: in daily travel (transport to and from races, shipping, etc.); and let F1 be F1.

Please have in mind this is no statistic, just that WB was chalenged somewhere and came up with two examples...

[Lurk]

I would disagree with your above comments, and they disregard relevant facts. Yes, the US is a large consumer of energy on a per-capita basis. But the US also uses that energy more efficiently than any other economy on earth. The US accounts for less than 20% of the world's energy consumption, yet it produces over 25% of the world's economic output.

Err... This is not a country but EU has a bigger GDP ($16,070 bn vs $14,660 bn) and
emits far less CO2 than USA (4.2bn tons vs 5.8bn tons)

Even better. You've got X amount of fuel for a race (or Y amount of energy), do whatever you want with it. Much simpler as well.

Totally agree with this one. Each manufacturer could choose what he wants to do.
I would also add a restricted budget on the engine development. But it could be hard to control, particulary for Mercedes & Ferrari who build their own engine and chassis...

[forty-two]

While I don't want to wade into the new engine proposal, I have to say, and once more I have had to pinch myself as I find myself agreeing with some of what WB says, European and Japanese car manufacturers DO manage to obtain not only better fuel economy but significantly higher BHP from each cubic inch of displacement.

As a straw poll, I would be interested in knowing what MPG per tank anyone actually gets, plus their factory stated BHP and for completeness the type of vehicle.

I drive a Skoda Superb estate, a car which is on the heavy side by European standards.. i chose it because of the ride quality at 69.5mph (the max speed limit on motorways here is 70 in case anyone's interested) and I ACTUALY achieve 55 miles per gallon over a tankful of Diesel from my 145bhp engine. This is based not on the onboard trip computer, but by working out how many miles I get from brimmed tank to brimmed tank. And I don't pay for my fuel, so I tend not to drive too "efficiently".

For what it's worth, I understand that Australia has in the past been quite similar to the US in terms of vehicle efficiency but in the last 10-15 years a lot of changes have happened there. A guy I know over there always swore by Ford and went from a car with a 6.5 litre engine to an Audi A4 with a 1.9 CR 170bhp diesel, and he loves it and will never go back!

[Richard]

Tsk, all these off topic posts talking about engines!

Look at the facts. Countries that have over taken France.

1. Germany

Have you not read the chronicle of foreign occupation written by Asterix the Gaul?

[strad]

Bites Tongue