Is the V6 formula a disaster for F1?

[CHT]

V6T itself is not an issue, draconian restrictions surrounding it are. Just lose the fuel limit, and up the flow limit to something like 110kg @ 12000 and 120kg @ 13500.

Current engine ICE is producing around 600bhp and ERS around 160bhp.

If we increase the fuel limit and rev limit of the ICE, its likely to push the output to beyond 700bhp.
So inevitably we will have to ask if ERS still necessary, especially when it so difficult to mange and expensive to build, plus it doesnt offer any audible and visible entrainment value to F1 fans.

The other challenge facing its ERS is its relevancy as its a technology that is some how sandwiched between electric and ICE. And with the slump in oil price and fracking revolution, the talk about going green is no long as loud as say 5 to 6 years ago. Perhaps still is among European countries, like Germany, but not in places like America or outside Europe.
Even then, car manufacturers seems to be more incline to move towards electric motors rather than KERS.

The question here is not about whether V6T is an issue for F1 cars, but would F1 fans and drivers would prefer the old formula of V8 or V10, that project a more "macho" image and sound than the current muted V6.

[Phil]

It doesn´t mean the engine is at fault just because it´s part of the car.
Otherwise the wheel rims are at fault as well. They´re not mentioned in the quotes but since they are an "inexorable part of the car" its their fault as well.

=D>

Exactly. The discussion isn't about if the sport was more demanding a decade ago - it's about if the V6 is a disaster for F1. They may be, when you look at them from a cost POV and how the little teams are already struggling, but from a performance point of view, they are hardly a step back. In fact, I'd even argue that they are a step in the right direction. As SectorOne posted, cars have become more difficult to drive as a result of the added torque and cars easier at breaking traction. Is the difference huge? Perhaps not. But it's still a step in the right direction. Further, it's nice that the technological aspect is widened and not limited to pure chassis/aero development. I actually like that the engines have become a more relevant aspect of these cars. I may dislike that they are noticably quieter than the V8 have been, but if it's progress and the "pinnacle of motorsport" you're after; noise is just a form of waste. That these cars are actually quieter shows and demonstrates that the energy is being used more efficiently, by using waste energies as means to charge the ERS components.

That the cars are 6-8 seconds a lap slower has little to do with the engine power figures, but the fact that they are running to a 100kg fuel and fuel flow limit, on full fuel tanks, as well as tyres that are more sensitive as well as overall less downforce. If you'd stick these engines into cars a decade ago, you'd be probably running better laptimes as a result of much better efficiency and less fuel needed for the duration of the race (meaning overal lighter cars or less pitstops). That is progress.

The engines are also important to make the sport more relevant to the engine manufacturers. You won't attract engine manufacturers by luring them with normally aspirated V10 or V8s. It may be a market that is still relevant to Ferrari as the only sportscar [engine] manufacturer in F1, but it isn't for Renault, or Mercedes. Sure, the teams themselves aren't engine specialists - their experties come at chassis and aero development, which is why I've argued in another thread that an "engine dominated formula" is dangerous for the sport (just as a tyre dominated formula is) - but the sport has unfortunately progressed to a state in which these engine manufacturers are very important and crucial to the sport.

What is a disaster for the sport; is IMO money distribution. Can't blame the big teams for taking advantage of it, but at some point with smaller teams going bust, they will need to wonder if the sport can still sustain the way it has been running. And; how big a victory will be, if you're the only one competing in it. At some point, it will become hollow and the sport itself will no longer matter.

[Cold Fussion]

The V8 engine period is by some margin the worst engine period F1 has ever seen. Why on earth would anyone want to return to those heavily compromised engines is beyond me. They even sound terrible, on both tv and real life.

[bhall II]

[...]

You're joking, right?

Since the power unit is the source of all tractive effort and is far and away the most prominent aspect of performance these days, it's not at all unreasonable to assume the drivers at least briefly considered its impact when they answered the questions. To do otherwise would be like writing a restaurant review that only encompasses the lavatory. So, I have no qualms whatsoever about using those quotes or extrapolating a basic assessment of PU driveability from them.

Plus, I make no distinction between a piece of hardware and the rules/strategies that govern its use, because the ultimate capability of a component is inconsequential if it's not allied with regulations that allow it to be maximized. In other words, you can't separate the nature from the beast.

Saving fuel is easy; pushing is not.

That said, if we're going to be über-pedantic here, you cannot definitively attribute "oversteer moments" to "someone [getting] a little bit too excited on the throttle mid-corner." There are too many other variables at work.

For the sake of argument, though, let's just say you're right.

It's still nothing new. An injudicious right foot can cause excessive wheelspin even if the car has gobs of downforce and/or traction control.







It doesn't even require all that much power or speed, either.





I think the "difficulty" often ascribed to the PU's wide powerband is an overstated and peculiar red herring. There was a time not too long ago when wide powerbands were seen as advantageous, because the linear progression made them easier to control. That's what Lauda meant with this...

At the moment the cars are too easy to drive. They are too progressive, there is too much technical help for the drivers. So we decided this and at the same time we want 1000hp because what has to be done is when a young driver gets into a Formula One car, he should --- in his pants when he drives out of the pits. And this is not happening today.

[Andres125sx]

A decade, so the problem is not the PU intrduced past season

And most of the quotes you posted are the same, they complain about cars being slower, and main responsability for that goes to aero restrictions, not to the engines, even for this last two season when not only v6 were introduced, but also aero was more limited

Actually, most of the quotes explicitly make note of the ease with which current machinery can be driven, and that includes the PU since it's an inexorable part of the car.

Sorry but that´s a big NO

Current engines have been pointed as a lot more difficult to drive, both because of the higher torque wich makes it more difficult to start accelerating without overtsteering and because the ERS makes it more difficult to brake without compromising stability

If you want to know what is a machinery easy to drive, you should re-watch any of the RB era with Vettel winning 90% of the races without doing one single wheel correction. Those cars were on rails, that´s easy to drive machinery.

Anycase you´re completely missing the point, the thread is about V6 engines, and you´re flooding the thread with quotes that are related to aero, not to the engine, and videos that are a nosense, like if somone spinning would be a proof for something.... Can you point me to some era when nobody made any spin?.

Edit: I got the videos you posted the other way around, sorry. But I think we all (Sector One, Phil and myself) don´t talk about the torque of current PUs because of some drivers spinning, but because some drivers specifically said this PUs are more difficult to drive than previous V8s, so your arguing about current cars are not nearly as difficult to drive than 10 years ago, while correct, has nothing to do with current PUs

About your previous arguing about how demanding were F1 cars ten year ago.... that has nothing to do with the engine, 100bhp more or less does change nothing. It´s downforce what makes it demanding. Cornering at 5.5G or at 4G is what makes the difference, that´s what made 2004 cars demanding, not the PU. That´s the reason I say you´re missing the point, the thread is about the PUs, and you´re arguing about aero. I could agree with you if the thread was about that, but it´s not

[Phil]

bhall,

While it isn't impossible to spin any car with any amount of torque - (and; added torque is not the correct argument, as torque is always relative!), it's the linearity and power delivery what makes these V6T more of a challenge than the NA V8s or V10s. A turbo engine with a sudden surge of power/torque in the lower rev-range will break traction more easily than an engine with a more linear and constant power delievery - thus it's more difficult at the limit (assuming all else is equal!).

Of course, you can make it more challenging by sticking low grip tyres to the car and the car will overal be easier to break traction. Assuming identical tyres though and grip characteristics, a "peaky" engines such as the V6T are, will be easier to break traction than any engine with linear power delivery.

As an example:
Most Caterham Super7 trackday cars have NA engines. There are a few variants however that have turbos and they are seriously difficult to drive, as they easily break traction and require a very controlled application of throttle. The less grippy the surface is (i.e. slippery conditions) the more difficult it gets. As another example: My Lotus Exige is extremely difficult to break traction in. Lots of weight on the rear-axle and relative linear power-delievery. To break traction, I already have to be at the limit of grip (i.e. in a corner) and in a lower gear. Comparatively, the same car in form of a Vauxhall Speedster (with a peaky turbo engines and similar peak power figure) will break traction a lot easier and thus be more difficult to drive [at the limit].

[emaren]

I am old enough to remember the Ferrari 312 series. The B2 could be heard from several corners away and it was almost possible to figure out where it was on track from the Silverstone grandstands. Pretty much every f1 car has been a step down, aurally since the mid 1970's.

I also remember the original Renault V6 Turbo in 1978 (?), it was not loud, but it had a unique sound that felt, at the time, to be very futuristic.

Standing in the pits and hearing the agony of the BMW I4 Turbo as it flew by the start-finish straight on a qualifying 'engine killing' run was pretty insane, the sound was awful in a mechanical torture fashion.

Seriously if f1 adopted the Audi I5 Group B engines, my ears would be super happy - probably the best (to me) sounding engine ever made.

The current V6's are quieter than the V8's, less ear-piercing than the old V10's, but certainly not a terrible noise when you are actually there. The TV sound is terrible though, for whatever reason, whomever is in charge of the TV feed seems to be determined to make the V6 turbo's sound terrible.

I sense that there are a lot of politics behind this poor sound quality. In reality they are nothing like as unpleasantly loud as the old engines, but they have character and they actually rather good IRL.

[Cold Fussion]

Part of the tv sound problem is the attenuating they do for the commentary track. During the Canadia qualifying my provider lost the Sky commentary feed and in place they had the 'raw' sound from cameras, and it sounded much closer to what they sound like IRL.

[bhall II]

bhall,

While it isn't impossible to spin any car with any amount of torque - (and; added torque is not the correct argument, as torque is always relative!), it's the linearity and power delivery what makes these V6T more of a challenge than the NA V8s or V10s. A turbo engine with a sudden surge of power/torque in the lower rev-range will break traction more easily than an engine with a more linear and constant power delievery - thus it's more difficult at the limit (assuming all else is equal!).

Yes, and do you not understand that what I've underlined above is exactly how the current PUs have been designed? Because the MGU-H keeps the turbine spooled up, and the MGU-K supplies low-range torque fill, turbo lag is a non-factor. Combined with fuel flow regulations...

5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.

...that create a power curve between 10,500rpm and 15,000rpn that's pretty much as flat as a table, and it doesn't get much easier, especially when drivers have to go through relatively extensive periods of fuel-saving.

[Steven]

In short, I don't think V6s are a disaster for F1. There is so much noise about the noise these days, that it would be worthwhile to check if everybody whining over the noise has actually been to a race/test in the past two years. They are indeed a whole lot quieter, but quiet is something else, and powerful they sound indeed.

Also interesting is the torque point that has come across. In theory, engines will generate more torque out of the corners, but it's up to the engine mapping software to decide when to deploy electrical energy in addition to the engine. The mappings are configured as such that batteries are not discharged when the car is too slow (as that would induce wheelspin), in order to get the maximum performance over a lap or a stint. Teams and drivers are very happy that this also reduces tyre wear.

This brings me once again to a point I've made endlessly, as I believe the tyres are the main problem. While Pirelli has indeed been asked to make a "control tyre", they haven't actually been doing a good job at all. This week they confirmed they expected the pace to be faster this year. How is that possible? Are they not consulting with teams?
I believe the FIA needs to work out a system to ensure tyre safety (perhaps assign an external agency to test tyres in all sorts of conditions), and under these terms allow multiple tyre suppliers again.

The interesting bit here is that when you would get proper racing tyres, drivers would be happier, engine maps can be adjusted to release more power earlier on in the accelleration phase and there may hopefully be less tyre management during a race.

I also agree that we can do away with the fuel limit, and keep only the fuel flow limit. I suspect however that the absolute fuel limit was introduced for marketing purposes, and the reliability of the fuel flow meters at the time were highly unsure.

[bhall II]

Current engines have been pointed as a lot more difficult to drive, both because of the higher torque wich makes it more difficult to start accelerating without overtsteering...

...so your arguing about current cars are not nearly as difficult to drive than 10 years ago, while correct, has nothing to do with current PUs

About your previous arguing about how demanding were F1 cars ten year ago.... that has nothing to do with the engine, 100bhp more or less does change nothing. It´s downforce what makes it demanding. Cornering at 5.5G or at 4G is what makes the difference, that´s what made 2004 cars demanding, not the PU. That´s the reason I say you´re missing the point, the thread is about the PUs, and you´re arguing about aero. I could agree with you if the thread was about that, but it´s not

I can easily imagine someone here making such a claim about torque, because this forum has a pretty checkered history when it comes to comprehension of that subject.

At any rate, I'd ask that you please read what I've actually posted, because that's the second or third time it's been said I made some sort of a claim about F1 ten years ago. I didn't.

Fernando Alonso made a claim about F1 ten years ago; I quoted him for an altogether different reason; and evidently no one read anything beyond that.

[Henk]

I think a more accurate way than looking at the amount of spins is looking at the amount of opposite lock going on in the current cars. With these current engines the cars seem to have a little wheelspin out of every slow corner in contrast to the 2013 Red Bull which looked like it had traction control. I'm looking forward to see how the teams and manufacturers will get that under control again. (I don't think the teams are managing to create these nice flat power curves yet)

I really like that these engines can be developed. There is now a fight going on in all areas of the car. The complexity of the engine also means that there is still a lot to gain. Every time tokens are mentioned the amount of HP that's expected is quite high. The numbers usually don't seem to be met but they give the impression that these engines could still gain a 100 HP in the years to come.

The sound is a problem but I'm willing to let that one go for these pieces of technological art and with a few minor tweaks to the regulations and the natural evolution the cars could decrease the laptimes to acceptable levels. Certainly not the Red Bull overhaul they want because they are losing.

@Bhall
2 or 3 of the youtube clips where spins under braking. You're not suggesting that those where issues with the PU, right?

[Phil]

Yes, and do you not understand that what I've underlined above is exactly how the current PUs have been designed?

Interesting. So then, if the engines are so similar (with, as you say, a very comparable power delievery), why do we read and observe the following?

For the drivers the major talking point is 'torque'.

Feb.13 (GMM) For those trackside, the biggest obvious change since the end of the 2013 season has been F1's new, milder engine note.

For the drivers, however, the major talking point is 'torque'.

The V8 engines of last year, and the radical new generation of ERS-bolstered turbo V6s, are actually producing similar overall power.

But the torque of the 2014 'power unit' is significantly higher.

"When I went out of the garage for the first time, I thought 'Wow!'" Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton is quoted by Germany's Sport Bild.

Force India's Adrian Sutil had an even starker experience.

"When I accelerated out of the corner, I was surprised," said the German, recalling his first moments with the Mercedes-Benz V6.

"I changed from third to fourth gear, lost the rear and I spun."

Works Mercedes driver Nico Rosberg agrees: "The driveability with the turbo is a little bit of an adventure!"

This is also in line with what we observe in races, when they are driving in relative high gears with lower revs through corners to tackle oversteer-moments. This is even more exagerated in wet conditions.

It's relatively hard to find actual power diagrams that show the difference between the former V8 and the new V6T, but I'm willing to bet that drivers now have a much more progressive power delievery (and power) at a given speed - which, as I said above, makes it more challenging (all else being equal). Higher top-speeds at similar maximum power output levels i.e. at Monza would probably also point to that.

[turbof1]

Bhall is very correct.

Yes you potentionally have more torque and thus a higher chance for wheel spin. However, the power delivery is highly controlled. And fairly constant!
-The turbo keeps spinning at a rather constant rate.
-The MGU-K is computer controlled to deliver power.

The only thing the driver really has to worry about, if the PU mapping is good enough (not like Renault in Melbourne...),is to keep the engine going from too fast into higher rev's. Exactly what we had in the V8 era. Therefore it's not more difficult.

The engines are not similar, but the way the driver has to handle them is.

Phill, note the date of the article. February 2014. Teams didn't have a lot of data at that time to make perfectly matching PU mappings. A mismatch between the PU map power delivery and the actual needed power delivery indeed makes these PUs difficult to drive. However now most are very well settled in that regard. I even think Renault was the only manufacturer that still had issues back in Melbourne. Ferrari's issues on that regard dissapeared, Mercedes always ran more less flawlessly and even Honda seems to have a good PU map.

This is also in line with what we observe in races, when they are driving in relative high gears with lower revs through corners to tackle oversteer-moments. This is even more exagerated in wet conditions.

I fail to see how staying in lower revs makes the whole excercise more difficult. I even believe this more done to save fuel then anything else.

[Phil]

I fail to see how staying in lower revs makes the whole excercise more difficult. I even believe this more done to save fuel then anything else.

I assume it has to do with being traction limited in most corners, hence, a lower gear would not yield a faster cornering speed since a slight tap on the throttle would result in loss of traction, whereas in a higher gear at lower revs, you have less disposable power and a finer control in finding the limit of traction.

As for Bhall's arguments; I still fail to see how the V6T would be that similar, artificially controlled by the ECU or not. KERS adds even more power/torque compared to a basic NA-engine. Comparing engine to engine, I'm very certain that the V6T deliever more power relative to its entire rev-range than any normal aspirated engine before it. I.e. at 50% of the rev-range, the V6T has a higher power output than any NA engine at 50% of the rev-range (peak power are in both cases similar). This means that at a given speed and rev-range, the new F1 cars have more relative power than before, which on artificially slippery tyres, would be even more exaggerated, hence why F1 cars in the last two season have looked more "snappish" and less on rails than seasons before. Sure, less downforce and no EBD helps. The engine and its power characteristics adds its share to it too though.