F1 v6 swap

[Nando]

Here is my list of the top 3 best sounding F1 engines of all time. Nothing on this planet even comes close in my opinion.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1InrgZiv30[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT36kC2pwAc[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZMPDCNyQxE[/youtube]


And nothing will ever come close to this.

[Raptor22]

you miss the point completely. The OEM's want cheaper engines. THe OEM's want green technologies because THEY have to do the work to get people to buy their cars. Why do think some companies prefer to go to LeMans rather than F1. Why do you think Ferrari is introducing a hybrid sportscar? BEcause enthusiasts want to hear a V12? If they wanted to they'd buy an older Ferrari and then the insurance cost keeps them in the garage for most of the year.

I think F1 fans are deluding themselves as to what "people out there" really want.

I think you just missed the point but ok

There should be no relation whatsoever to any market outside of F1 itself. They should go forward on their own, regardless of other markets entirely. If a hybrid engine brings more speed, that is progress and thus I would see as positive.

This V6 however is going to be slower no? That's just retarded.

I didn't miss the point. Some fans want great sounding engines and unlimited racing at any cost. I'd love that too but those days, my friend, they sailed away over the horizon a long time ago. F1 has to get relevant or it's bye bye. Thats the reality, not a fantasy

[Speedster]

I fully understand why it happens, I just think it's a damn shame.

Let's hope it doesn't work out and the audience does indeed not give a flying --- about F1 or even cars in general, while at the mean time alienating themselves from current fans, ending with the death of F1, resulting in a new top series that is all about going as fast as possible with no outside influence whatsoever.

I don't think so. I think people are still attracted by motorsports in general and to F1 in particular, because of the, perceived or not, level of professionalism. I'm still impressed every race at how determined everyone is and that teams are spending 200 million a year to develop the best car for the race. I think many people have the same feeling, or ratings wouldn't be that high. With spec cars, you will lose part of the circus too. But there is nothing holding the sport back from cutting costs, while still maintaining the story they are at the cutting edge. Whether it is 200 million or 800 million, the top team will still be perceived as being on the cutting edge of technology. That's all that's important for marketing, not whether they actually are.

Oh, and to another poster, when I have the chance, I will buy cars with (big) naturally aspirated engines. Sadly, options are quickly running out, but I can't get used to the dynamics of the turbo engines of today, and I also experience much worse than advertised mpg in those cars, more so than in naturally aspirated engines (they might still be more efficient, but less than advertised).

[Powershift]

The turbo cars of the 80's were the most powerful and efficient F1 cars of all time.

F1 should have never banned turbos and I'm very happy that they are returning.

The turbo engines slated for 2014 will sound much better than the current earsplitting V8's.

[Nando]

The turbo cars of the 80's were the most powerful and efficient F1 cars of all time.

Could you elaborate?

[mx_tifoso]

Efficient in terms of output relative to displacement?

[jdlive]

Is there any (projected) data available on how much slower the cars are going to get? What would you guys guess?

[AlpineF1]

i would say with current projection around half a second per lap just a guess

[jdlive]

i would say with current projection around half a second per lap just a guess

That's (a lot) less then I expected

[AlpineF1]

well the torque rate is 50lb higher than the current f1 design but its around 200 horsepower less than the current engines (ouch!!) so half a second is probably inaccurate we could be going backwards from now its very sad but i dont think we'll be seeing much speed progression

[matt21]

The turbo cars of the 80's were the most powerful and efficient F1 cars of all time.

Could you elaborate?

They had about 900 hp with 195 l fuel allowed for the whole races in 1986 compared to around 750 hp with around 210 l fuel used for a race today.

This equals 4,3 hp/l in 85 to 3,6 hp/l today.

[jdlive]

well the torque rate is 50lb higher than the current f1 design but its around 200 horsepower less than the current engines (ouch!!) so half a second is probably inaccurate we could be going backwards from now its very sad but i dont think we'll be seeing much speed progression

What would you guess per lap? I was thinking more like 5 seconds slower myself

[AlpineF1]

i think it depends on the track on silverstone it might be 5-5 seconds but at monaco or other high downforce tracks half or 1 second unless it rains

[jdlive]

5 seconds =D> [-o<

[Raptor22]

The turbo cars of the 80's were the most powerful and efficient F1 cars of all time.

Could you elaborate?

They had about 900 hp with 195 l fuel allowed for the whole races in 1986 compared to around 750 hp with around 210 l fuel used for a race today.

This equals 4,3 hp/l in 85 to 3,6 hp/l today.

1986 would be a bad example of efficiency in turbo engines since they were still on the upward learning curves.
1988 McLaren MP4/4 Honda, 1.5L (150L Fuel tank) 850bHp boost restricted engine = 0.5L /Km economy.
Compare that to 2012 where the bhp is aroun 750 and the fuel tank capacity is around 185L average = 0.61L /kilometer.
Less power, higher fuel consumption so the turbo engines were more efficient, thermally, ASE and mechanically since they had less downforce and ancilliary equipment to drive.