Is the V6 formula a disaster for F1?

[Andres125sx]

Andre: What he is saying about the fuel flow limit is that the max flow shouldn't be available till a higher rpm, thereby forcing the engines to run faster. If max flow wasn't available till 14,500 rpm, every PU would use the full 15k revs allowed by the regs and they would sound miles better.

Ok, thanks for the clarification

But is that necessary? I mean, with a higher fuel flow allowed then it would be worth reaching the 15k rpm limit by itself, or not?

Yes, because you only get more power with more fuel. The reason the teams don't rev to 15k rpm is because there's no more fuel available, and hence no more power available by doing that.

That´s obvious and the reason I was asking for a higher fuel flow

The idea IIRC of setting the fuel flow limit around the 11k rpm mark was that it would stop teams bouncing off the rev limiter when trying to overtake, and hence break DRS trains.

Wait.... the 11k rpm mark is in the rules?

Are you sure?

I can´t find anything at that respect.

If it´s in the rules then agree that should be increased, but I was thinking there was no rpm reference for the max fuel flow, the only reference to rpm in the rules is the max 15k limit, and if they don´t reach it it´s only because of the fuel flow limit because it´s not worth to go that high in revs if there´s no more fuel available. That´s one of the reasons I´d increase the fuel flow a little bit

But if both you and Pierce say there´s a rpm limit for the max fuel flow then it must be true, and then I agree, that should be increased too obviously

[tok-tokkie]

Having just watch the Le Mans 24hr you have to admire the variety of engines and technology in that series. I think F1 needs to realise that WEC is now the clear pinnacle of technology and racing. The sooner they do that the sooner we can get out of this mess. Current F1 is horrible because they have painted themselves into a corner with ridiculous regulations.

Exactly what I was thinking.

They say they need these draconian technical restraints so that F1 does not become a spending war which would drive the manufacturers out yet WEC allows engineering variety and has Audi, Porsche, Toyota and Nissan in LMP1 and the cars are all hybrid.

[Cold Fussion]

The idea IIRC of setting the fuel flow limit around the 11k rpm mark was that it would stop teams bouncing off the rev limiter when trying to overtake, and hence break DRS trains.

Wait.... the 11k rpm mark is in the rules?

Are you sure?

I can´t find anything at that respect.

You didn't try very hard:

5.1.3 Crankshaft rotational speed must not exceed 15000rpm.
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.

[turbof1]

Unlocked. Please treat fellow members nicely!

[Emmcee]

Iam tired of hearing all this "cut costs" bs. They have been cutting costs for ten years now so where is the saved money going? You can't possible need to continue to cut costs, there has to some sort of bench mark. Bernie is probably pocketing the whole lot and not inject the saved funds back into the sport. You think about it, we have 20 cars now and top ten score points. Back say 15-20 years ago you had 25-30 cars on the grid and only the top 6 scoring points and yet the smaller teams scored more points than the tail Enders now. Bernie makes it that hard for smaller teams to operate and if he injected the money back into the sport, these smaller teams could compete on a decent level. It's all part of a grand scheme to have an all manufacturers series IMO.

[ojlopez]

Someone wanted more 'manliness' in F1. Well lets just have a look at our current world champ..

http://s14.postimg.org/6q29qt4c1/114261 ... 2812_n.jpg

Sheesh! What is wrong with that kid? It looks like he's taking Bieber lessons.

I could not agree with you more. Hamilton "gangster-hipster-drug dealer" look makes him look stupid. Don't get me wrong, I like his driving style, but outside the track its like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Drivers image is a big thing, and in my opinion, Hamilton would have more fans if he would drop all the bad hair day, ridiculous cap, etc.

Anyway, back on the subject, I still believe in the V6T's, but with no fuel flow limit and longer lasting tires, with compulsory pit stops.

[ME4ME]

Is the V6 formula a disaster for F1?

The more I think about it: Yes, it is.

The technology is fine, going for higher efficiency is the way to go, they just should have been more powerful.
They shouldn't have gone with the 1.6 L "ready to be put i a family car" engine.
2.5+ L and higher fuel flow for 1200+ bhp would have been both amazing and promoting the technology.

[langwadt]

Is the V6 formula a disaster for F1?

The more I think about it: Yes, it is.

The technology is fine, going for higher efficiency is the way to go, they just should have been more powerful.
They shouldn't have gone with the 1.6 L "ready to be put i a family car" engine.
2.5+ L and higher fuel flow for 1200+ bhp would have been both amazing and promoting the technology.

why 2.5L? I'm sure they could just as well make 1200+ bhp with 1.6L the limit is the fuel

[Andres125sx]

The idea IIRC of setting the fuel flow limit around the 11k rpm mark was that it would stop teams bouncing off the rev limiter when trying to overtake, and hence break DRS trains.

Wait.... the 11k rpm mark is in the rules?

Are you sure?

I can´t find anything at that respect.

You didn't try very hard:

5.1.3 Crankshaft rotational speed must not exceed 15000rpm.
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.

Hey where did you get it? With the new oficial web I can´t find the full rules.....


Actually, with that ruling it´s only necessary to modify 5.1.4, wich is the point I was saying. Next point limiting fuel flow below 10500rpm is just that, below 10500 rpm, so if allowing a higher fuel flow that point could still be the same, so only above that they´d be allowed to burn more fuel and it´d be up to each team/driver to increase the revs or not to increase the fuel flow or not keeping in mind what they burn now will need to be saved later

[PlatinumZealot]

Is the V6 formula a disaster for F1?

The more I think about it: Yes, it is.

The technology is fine, going for higher efficiency is the way to go, they just should have been more powerful.
They shouldn't have gone with the 1.6 L "ready to be put i a family car" engine.
2.5+ L and higher fuel flow for 1200+ bhp would have been both amazing and promoting the technology.

why 2.5L? I'm sure they could just as well make 1200+ bhp with 1.6L the limit is the fuel

The engines might be more durable with a larger displacement.. but I agree going to 2.5 liter means the engines won't need to rev as high to max out the fuel required and we will have slow revving 2.5 liter engines.. 2.5 liter I would love only if the fuel flow limit is at least 160 kg/hr. This should be enough for 1000 horsepower from the ICE alone.

[Andres125sx]

Is the V6 formula a disaster for F1?

The more I think about it: Yes, it is.

The technology is fine, going for higher efficiency is the way to go, they just should have been more powerful.
They shouldn't have gone with the 1.6 L "ready to be put i a family car" engine.
2.5+ L and higher fuel flow for 1200+ bhp would have been both amazing and promoting the technology.

1985, 1.5 turbo engines, around 900bhp with race configurations and around 1400bhp with qualifying configurations

And that´s without mgu-h or mgu-k wich today provides 160bhp more

Problem is not the engine itself, but the ruling imposing so much limits for the engine, turbo, lifespan....

[PlatinumZealot]

Is the V6 formula a disaster for F1?

The more I think about it: Yes, it is.

The technology is fine, going for higher efficiency is the way to go, they just should have been more powerful.
They shouldn't have gone with the 1.6 L "ready to be put i a family car" engine.
2.5+ L and higher fuel flow for 1200+ bhp would have been both amazing and promoting the technology.

1985, 1.5 turbo engines, around 900bhp with race configurations and around 1400bhp with qualifying configurations

And that´s without mgu-h or mgu-k wich today provides 160bhp more

Problem is not the engine itself, but the ruling imposing so much limits for the engine, turbo, lifespan....

Those engines weren't engines.. They were bombs with a bunch of pistons beneath.

[Tim.Wright]

The engines aren't a problem. The issue is the required babying of the tyres which means the car is operating with a huge margin of grip and therefore stability. Upping the power will only result in the driver's having to use less throttle to maintain the tyres.

How rare is it now to see driver's making mistakes compared to years gone by? How rare is it now to see someone spin on the exit of the corner? Look at how little corrective movement there is on the steering wheels now compared to 10 years ago. Even in at the start of the year, Red Bull driver's were complaining of severe driveability problems yet there were very few spins and barring mechanical failure they made it to the finish of every race. This demonstrates how far under the limit the car's are being driven and the reason is the tyres. The only times we see the drivers making mistakes are when they crash into each other. If they are on their own, they are so far below the limit that they are not being challenged at all.

However, correcting this problem is a double edged sword. The tyres are the only thing stopping Mercedes from properly stretching their legs. The tyres are currently acting as an artifical "performance limiter" and it's the only thing keeping the grid together. If you remove this, its one less thing holding the Merc's back.

As always, it's close racing or fast racing. You can't have both.

[ME4ME]

The engines might be more durable with a larger displacement.. but I agree going to 2.5 liter means the engines won't need to rev as high to max out the fuel required and we will have slow revving 2.5 liter engines.. 2.5 liter I would love only if the fuel flow limit is at least 160 kg/hr. This should be enough for 1000 horsepower from the ICE alone.

Exactly. Higher displacement (2.5 L was just an example), higher fuel flow and therefor higher output from the ICE at similar revs as now with the 1.6 L engines would be great.

Reason for the higher displacement would be to keep revs at <15000 rpm to keep friction low and efficiency high. Cause if you want efficiency and use ERS etc, you might as well use an efficient ICE too. So target would be more power, higher fuel flow, but with efficiency and therefor technological relevance intact. Also like you mentioned reliability must be decent, no 1.5L turbo "bombs"

[Andres125sx]

Those engines weren't engines.. They were bombs with a bunch of pistons beneath.

It was just an example of how powerful current engines could be, if not limited by rules

Actually with ERS they don´t even need to match those bombs. Considering those bombs are 30 years old, I guess today they could get reliable engines with 800bhp (100 less than ´86 engines wich lasted one race), so the PU will be close to 1000bhp


Simplifying, the V6T are not a problem at all, problem is the rules