Return Of The Mighty V-10?

[andylaurence]

Of course, LaFerrari is japanese, P1 is american, 918 is from Australia, Veneno from Korea, and Huayra from China....

Also you talk about supercars that only about a 2% of Europeans can afford, but lets be honest, the average American can afford a V8, the average european never could cause of the high tax laws, they had to content to small 4 cylinders, which had an impact on the strategy of the car industries.

Most people can't afford to run a V8 because the fuel is too expensive (that's a tax on economy, which seems to favour the turbo cars) and because the tax is too much (thanks to poor emissions from the V8).

If you disagree I´ll be glad to hear some more efficient package than BMW I8 PU, 2litres for 362hp.

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution FQ-440 MR . 440hp from a 2l turbo engine without the hybrid bs

How are you defining efficient here? The Mitsubishi makes 27mpg, whilst the BMW i8 manages over 130mpg. Of course, an equivalent performance V8 doesn't match either.

[Blanchimont]

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 29184.html

I don't know what the source is for the claims made in the article, but i'll give a summary.

For 2015:
- only little changes made to the engine regs
- 4 engines for the season
- if a team doesn't use all the 32 modifiable items until february 28th, the remaining items can be used during the season

For 2016:
- all the team representatives share the opinion that new engine regs should be introduced
- the FIA asked for maximum engine costs of 10 million € (maybe only 5)
- 1000hp is the subjective, maybe through a higher fuel flow allowed, the current V6 should be the base
- agreement on a list of standardized components (could be the battery)
- free engine development
- the engine departments of the teams have to come up with a solution until the end of january

[toraabe]

Remember that the engines should be based on the current v6 engines.
To get 1000 hp out of the current engines is quite easy.
Drop the fuel flow And increase the MGU-H to MGU-K flow

There you go...

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 29184.html

I don't know what the source is for the claims made in the article, but i'll give a summary.

For 2015:
- only little changes made to the engine regs
- 4 engines for the season
- if a team doesn't use all the 32 modifiable items until february 28th, the remaining items can be used during the season

For 2016:
- all the team representatives share the opinion that new engine regs should be introduced
- the FIA asked for maximum engine costs of 10 million € (maybe only 5)
- 1000hp is the subjective, maybe through a higher fuel flow allowed, the current V6 should be the base
- agreement on a list of standardized components (could be the battery)
- free engine development
- the engine departments of the teams have to come up with a solution until the end of january

[WaikeCU]

4 engines a season... I have the feeling Honda might be the weakest link in this, since they have a data deficit compared to the other competing engine manufacturers. Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault all have a season data and experience under their belt.

[Sulman]

In my opinion the way to approach this topic of which PU is the best for F1, is to open up the engine regulations completely. Let the engineers figure it out. The only restriction I would impose is a maximum fuel limit based on its respective specific energy content. Minimum weight regulation is still a must of course. Like this we could see a lot of different approaches kind of like with LMP, only more radical. I don't think we'd have exploding budgets because with open regulations there are more options to outsmart your opponents. May the cleverest team win!!

It would be lovely, but it would also be terribly, terribly expensive.

In terms of competition, having one team get it right would be an exercise in dominance that you see in Sportscars, something that sportscar fans seem to conveniently forget.

[xpensive]

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 29184.html

I don't know what the source is for the claims made in the article, but i'll give a summary.

For 2015:
- only little changes made to the engine regs
- 4 engines for the season
- if a team doesn't use all the 32 modifiable items until february 28th, the remaining items can be used during the season

For 2016:
- all the team representatives share the opinion that new engine regs should be introduced
- the FIA asked for maximum engine costs of 10 million € (maybe only 5)
- 1000hp is the subjective, maybe through a higher fuel flow allowed, the current V6 should be the base
- agreement on a list of standardized components (could be the battery)
- free engine development
- the engine departments of the teams have to come up with a solution until the end of january

Easy, just ditch the Hybrid-folly and increase fuel-flow from 28 to 48 g/sec and you got 1000 Hp right there.

You might need fatter con-rods and head-bolts, plus a few more engines per season, but what the heck?

[Blanchimont]

That would be way to easy, x.

I think it was Jean Todt who once said: "We choose to design the regulations that way, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize a complete mess and reveal the best of our stupidity."

[bill shoe]

If you disagree I´ll be glad to hear some more efficient package than BMW I8 PU, 2litres for 362hp.

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution FQ-440 MR . 440hp from a 2l turbo engine without the hybrid bs

How are you defining efficient here? The Mitsubishi makes 27mpg, whilst the BMW i8 manages over 130mpg. Of course, an equivalent performance V8 doesn't match either.

Efficiency should consider overall efficiency (including the value of resources that were required to make the vehicle), not just the value of the resources required to keep a vehicle running once it's been made. Not clear why a good analysis would ignore the resources that went into creating a vehicle. Energy efficiency is only significant to the extent that it approximates something useful about the overall resource cost. I don't know anything about the Mitsu described, but I'll bet it's better for overall resource efficiency than the BMW i8.

And somewhere in there are lessons for Formula 1 when teams are dropping out due to powertrain packages that use maybe 200 gallons less fuel per year once they are bought, but they cost $40 million per year in upfront cost. F1 appears to have ignored overall efficiency in arriving at the current difficult powertrain situation.

[TAG]

Efficiency should consider overall efficiency (including the value of resources that were required to make the vehicle), not just the value of the resources required to keep a vehicle running once it's been made. Not clear why a good analysis would ignore the resources that went into creating a vehicle. Energy efficiency is only significant to the extent that it approximates something useful about the overall resource cost. I don't know anything about the Mitsu described, but I'll bet it's better for overall resource efficiency than the BMW i8.

And somewhere in there are lessons for Formula 1 when teams are dropping out due to powertrain packages that use maybe 200 gallons less fuel per year once they are bought, but they cost $40 million per year in upfront cost. F1 appears to have ignored overall efficiency in arriving at the current difficult powertrain situation.

You don't have all of the information but seem as if you're making a pretty definitive conclusion. The sport is about finding ways to push the envelope within the given rules. It's always the way it's been. What's the difference between Mercede's dominant showing with their engine versus anything else that may have been introduced in the regulations. Even if it was a rubber band powered F1 car, someone would make the best and most efficient one and would therefore win.

This year's engines used around 33% less fuel and saw similar performance even though the cars had less aero and less grip in the tires. Things cost more initially then as the technology matures and improves it will cost less, that's just the way things are. I hear cost coming up over and over again but as far as Mercedes goes, their engines are quoted as costing 20% more than last year's engines. I know that wasn't the case for Ferrari and Renault's pricing, so we'd have to ask how come. Marussia used Ferrari engines, and Caterham used Renault, from what I've come across the Merc engines are substantially cheaper than both to the tune of 5 million cheaper than Ferrari and nearly 15 million cheaper than Renault which is the engine costing 40 million for the year.

[bill shoe]

TAG, yea good points. I think there's logic to F1 paying more upfront because they are demonstrating, promoting, and developing new technology. Even within that context there's a limit. Probably they've gone too far in the high-upfront-cost direction. But I think I'm less forgiving of a mass-produced BMW i8 that justifies its price, really, on novelty value rather than overall cost of ownership. But I don't have to buy one so maybe I should just shut up and appreciate the free R&D I get from the people who do.

[McMrocks]

Just wondered: Wouldn't those mighty V10T require a lot of cooling? We could see really huge sidepods

[mclaren111]

One has to move with the times !!!!!!!

I am sure they can find a way to make these engines louder to an acceptable level.

Will be cheaper than going to V10's and develop them to 1000HP all over again - and I LOVE the V10 sound.

Also, drop the fuel flow restrictions which will allow higher refs and full-out racing.

[hollus]

Best way to fix the sound:

Which they do already for your regular news anchor and Pavarotti or Lady Gaga. That would work for the hundreds of millions that watch on TV about 20 times a year.
For the 1-2 million that once a year get to be present at the venue, this will not work.
There, we went back to marketing again with a solution that would work for 99.9% if the income generators.

[mikeerfol]

Aren't they going to keep the V6?

[Andres125sx]

I don´t know any law against big displacement engines, I do know laws about pollution tough
What´s the reason you consider size as an important factor for the package efficiency but you do not consider emissions as another factor for that same efficiency?

I have to pay 1150 Euros every year for my 330i in a country where the basic salary is 500, while an old 1400cc pays 135 euros and a prius owner pays nothing.

Sorry, but you´re not paying for the engine size, but for the whole car. Bigger, more expensive, more thristy.... Taxes are always proportional, that´s all, engine is just a part of that, not the only reason

Of course, LaFerrari is japanese, P1 is american, 918 is from Australia, Veneno from Korea, and Huayra from China....

Also you talk about supercars that only about a 2% of Europeans can afford, but lets be honest, the average American can afford a V8, the average european never could cause of the high tax laws, they had to content to small 4 cylinders, which had an impact on the strategy of the car industries.

I talk about what Agenda asked me about. He was talking about HIGH POWER (and insisted, high power) engines saying they´re not european because of the rules, so high power are those, they´re the most powerful cars on planet, and they´re european

An american V8 is just a big and unefficient engine, I wouldn´t say those are good examples of high power engines, they provide high power because they´re truck size, that´s all, any european or japanesse engine of similar size will beat it

If you disagree I´ll be glad to hear some more efficient package than BMW I8 PU, 2litres for 362hp.

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution FQ-440 MR . 440hp from a 2l turbo engine without the hybrid bs

Sorry but I meant 2 litres of fuel to do 100km, with 362hp. Evo does need more than 4x that fuel for the same 100km. That´s quite far from being more efficient, it only provide more specific power, but it´s not more efficient

And Japanesse are experts efficiency wise, their 280hp limit law forced them to improve efficiency as max power was limited, but not even them can match the efficiency of a hybrid car.

If we want to talk about emissions, Toyota admits that the production of its Prius requires much more energy and emits more carbon dioxide than the production of its gas-only models, and lets not talk about the great harm to the ecology and environment where their batteries are build.
It may make up for that in a lifetime usage, but only for Co2, but what about the acids that entering the groundwater from the extraction of the gold-flecked metals, and the much higher sulfur oxide emissions, that come from the hybrid battery manufacturers? Also with the trend building behind it it has became the new i-phone of cars, everybody is going for the newer models after 4-5 years, doing more harm, than good.
I may be a little old, and have prehistoric views about motorsports but I've always been a petrolhead and I am sure a lot of F1 fans think the same. No one of the prius owners I know of, was ever interested in F1 or any other motorsports,, they are not car enthusiasts. They would be compromised in a boring and bland car because all they care about is efficiency, economy,trend, hype etc. (and to be smug about their trendy car-gadget too, lol)
F1 adapted this ''new'' hybrid technology mainly for marketing and ''green image'' reasons which obviously according to the numbers didn't go well at all. Despite the fact that the decline started many years ago, this new era didn't help at all, and in many cases it was worse than previous years.
Also just because they saw the world ''they care'' with their environmental ''friendly'' approach and their ''new'' technology, doesn't makes them a better, more evolved motorsport and all the other ones ancient and prehistoric!
Imo that's what f1 has became, the pinnacle of smugness.
http://31.media.tumblr.com/c183681c8a9f ... 1_1280.jpg

Again, this is new technology wich need to be improved. But with your reasoning there wouldn´t be innovation.

Those problems you talk about batteries, will be solved with next generation batteries, with no toxic materials and 100% recyclable.

You can´t judge a technology for its first attempts results, you must take into consideration its future posibilities. Petrolheads as you defined yourself tend to do this unfair comparison, but I´m sure you know it´s not fair, you must take into account the potential