Is the V6 formula a disaster for F1?

[Juzh]

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

If only..

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.

More power, more sound, less lift and coast.

[r_b_l]

I agree with the comments that V6T is not the problem, however, I do not think the sport tried to coax other engine manufacturers to join the sport, or at least have some variation/relaxed regulations with the design of the engine to entice manufactures to join the new V6's (then tighten them up if required)

For example, looking at some of the posts regarding Le Mans series I have noticed that the series includes V6 Nissan, Ferrari, Honda, AER & Audi (diesel) engines.

What happened to some of the freedom that engine manufactures used to have within the regulations? I remember when Renault came out with the Renault RS21 3.0 V10 with the wide v degree of 111°!!! yes it sucked *%$# for the year, but at least Renault could give it a try. I'm sure there are plenty more examples like the RS21 that all of you remember.

I do not see any new engine manufactures that would want to join a sport where the regulations are so strict and If something does go wrong or not to plan, the manufacturer gets 60% of the blame, i.e bad image, from the fourth round of the competition and the only way to improve your product is by a "token" system. I do not understand how "limitation of development" is good for any manufacturer wanting to provide & improve their product based on this system unless you really want to get the best out of the engine over several years. Furthermore when you are behind the competition, with this system there is little to gain or catch up using this system. I do not see Renault catching up to Mercedes with these rules.

If F1 wanted to cut engine costs, they should have stuck to conventional engines with a turbo, that is no MGUH, no energy store & no MGUK. You cant have technology without a $value

The near disaster I foresee/more probable, would be Renault pulling out of the sport, without a replacement.

[Emmcee]

I don't understand why Redbull plaster Infiniti logos all over there car but use Renault engines. Why not coax nissan in? They have built some of the new 6 cylinder turbo engines ever. It's like Mercedes using Porsche engines. You would think with all the previous success Renault had in the last turbo era, this would be in there ball park.

[Spoutnik]

I don't understand why Redbull plaster Infiniti logos all over there car but use Renault engines. Why not coax nissan in? They have built some of the new 6 cylinder turbo engines ever. It's like Mercedes using Porsche engines. You would think with all the previous success Renault had in the last turbo era, this would be in there ball park.

Infinity had a role on the electronic I read somewhere, and Infiniti is a luxury/prenium brand of Nissan, like Lexus for Toyota and you know Nissan and Renault are on the same group. Also, in the actual condition I don't think Renault want to be more advertise

[bhall II]

I agree with the comments that V6T is not the problem, however, I do not think the sport tried to coax other engine manufacturers to join the sport, or at least have some variation/relaxed regulations with the design of the engine to entice manufactures to join the new V6's (then tighten them up if required)

[...]

It's been openly acknowledged that the new engine rules were designed to retain Mercedes and Renault, both of whom considered high-revving NA engines irrelevant, and to bring in new manufacturers like Honda and Audi. In fact, the original notion of a four-cylinder turbo was strictly at Audi's behest. The rules encompassing the PU are so restricted because the people who run F1 are Grade-A morons who can't see beyond the tips of their own noses.

Greatly limiting the scope of allowable development was thought to be a way to reduce costs and ensure some form of parity. No one seemed to understand the inevitability that one PU would be better than the rest and that the so-called "development freeze" would set that advantage in stone and cause rivals to spend exorbitant sums to try to catch up. To a certain extent, though, I think we all deserve such a hideous and convoluted outcome.

The "road relevance" of motorsport is bullshit, and it always has been, and there was a time not too long ago when everyone understood that. Automakers would compete in motorsport to demonstrate engineering prowess:

"If we can build a 3.0L V10 that revs to 20K RPM and relies heavily on technology, like pneumatic valve springs, that you'll never, ever need, then you best believe we can build a decent sedan for you to park in your garage!"

But, somewhere along the way, we seem to have lost the ability for such lateral thinking. Now everything has to be literal. The end result is that Formula One, a series formerly consisting of all-out sprints and routinely celebrated for its conspicuous consumption, has inexplicably been reduced to a slog of short "endurance" events that are pointless, boring, and nowhere near as taxing as actual endurance races.

The allure is gone, because it was chased away.

[Cold Fussion]

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.....

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fia+regulations

[SectorOne]

I´d love to see FIA make a rule saying you can build whatever engine you want but you only get 100kg´s of fuel for the race to power it.

Skip the ERS stuff until F1 moves to full electric machines in 15-20 years.

[Shooty81]

I´d love to see FIA make a rule saying you can build whatever engine you want but you only get 100kg´s of fuel for the race to power it.

Skip the ERS stuff until F1 moves to full electric machines in 15-20 years.

Some contradiction in here...

I'd love to see that Kind of rules, too. But I'd expect strong "ERS stuff".
Maybe adjust the exact fuel allocation from race to race.

[Miguel]

I know F1 has been deaf and blind to its own problems for several years, though, and it seems only now the alarms are ringing. I'm not sure if the V6T formula is a disaster just yet. However, there's something I'd like to say.

F1, unlike feeder series, has always been an endurance series. True, it's parsecs away from a 24h race, and not even close to a 6h race, but it's definitely not a sprint series. Compare it with other series, where cars, most of the time, only pit for legal reasons. F1 has been an "endurance-sprint" race only from 1994 to 2009: it is refuelling that makes going "all out"* the fastest way to do 305 km. Before that, there was fuel saving. From 2010 to 2013, they were all lifting and coasting. The only difference now is that, in a couple of tracks, they are fuel-limited.

Part of the problems in F1 is caused by being in an "game end" situation. Teams know reliability is crucial, and have the means to get it while still being performant. Teams know drivability is crucial, and thus spend a lot of effort making sure their cars don't handle like the Gerhard Berger's Benneton-BMW. Teams have a good grasp of aero, and generate vortices at will to seal the floor. Teams know where to save the most fuel losing the least time, avoiding dramas at the end of the race. All this can't be "unlearnt". Change the rules upside down, and teams will still build the most drivable, most reliable cars they can, with fancy aero tricks. Remember what Pat Symonds said: "If you went to the 80's with this year's Marussia, you'd be considered to do black magic"

When you spend Saturday ordering cars-drivers by performance, don't be surprised when the race doesn't change much.

* Note that, even in the super-sprint era of 2003 and 2004, where qualy was done on race fuel without burning, fastest laps were almost always slower than in qualifying by a couple of seconds.

[Cold Fussion]

I´d love to see FIA make a rule saying you can build whatever engine you want but you only get 100kg´s of fuel for the race to power it.

Skip the ERS stuff until F1 moves to full electric machines in 15-20 years.

So you're free to do what ever you want except you can't have a hybrid system?

[sgth0mas]

I agree with the comments that V6T is not the problem, however, I do not think the sport tried to coax other engine manufacturers to join the sport, or at least have some variation/relaxed regulations with the design of the engine to entice manufactures to join the new V6's (then tighten them up if required)

[...]

It's been openly acknowledged that the new engine rules were designed to retain Mercedes and Renault, both of whom considered high-revving NA engines irrelevant, and to bring in new manufacturers like Honda and Audi. In fact, the original notion of a four-cylinder turbo was strictly at Audi's behest. The rules encompassing the PU are so restricted because the people who run F1 are Grade-A morons who can't see beyond the tips of their own noses.

Greatly limiting the scope of allowable development was thought to be a way to reduce costs and ensure some form of parity. No one seemed to understand the inevitability that one PU would be better than the rest and that the so-called "development freeze" would set that advantage in stone and cause rivals to spend exorbitant sums to try to catch up. To a certain extent, though, I think we all deserve such a hideous and convoluted outcome.

The "road relevance" of motorsport is bullshit, and it always has been, and there was a time not too long ago when everyone understood that. Automakers would compete in motorsport to demonstrate engineering prowess:

"If we can build a 3.0L V10 that revs to 20K RPM and relies heavily on technology, like pneumatic valve springs, that you'll never, ever need, then you best believe we can build a decent sedan for you to park in your garage!"

But, somewhere along the way, we seem to have lost the ability for such lateral thinking. Now everything has to be literal. The end result is that Formula One, a series formerly consisting of all-out sprints and routinely celebrated for its conspicuous consumption, has inexplicably been reduced to a slog of short "endurance" events that are pointless, boring, and nowhere near as taxing as actual endurance races.

The allure is gone, because it was chased away.

Good point on the road relevance. Even looking at ford with the new le mans challenger, they had already developed the ecoboost platform. The racing was the avenue for marketing just as it is for nearly everyone else. Road relevance in F1 is silly, and i wish they would get off their high horse as if theyre the race series that makes cars great.

If i had to guess, merc and renault wanted a technology that would suit their knowledge base relative to other manufacturers and thus give them a competitive advantage. I simply cant believe that road car relevance was that much of a deal. Maybe merc just really needed to slap hybrid on their car for more marketing, but they could already do that with ers.

Everyone in f1 publicly whines and threatens to leave if they dont get their way.

[emaren]

I´d love to see FIA make a rule saying you can build whatever engine you want but you only get 100kg´s of fuel for the race to power it.

Skip the ERS stuff until F1 moves to full electric machines in 15-20 years.

So you're free to do what ever you want except you can't have a hybrid system?

Actually skip the mandatory hybrids.

I am fairly sure that the fastest way around the track with such a fuel limitation will pretty much demand that energy is harvested, perhaps not in such a carefully regulated fashion as the moment, but that is half the fun.

Reduce the fuel limit by say 5kg/year over the next ten years and the suddenly they are twice as efficient, but I would bet no slower than they are today.

[Cold Fussion]

If i had to guess, merc and renault wanted a technology that would suit their knowledge base relative to other manufacturers and thus give them a competitive advantage. I simply cant believe that road car relevance was that much of a deal. Maybe merc just really needed to slap hybrid on their car for more marketing, but they could already do that with ers.

I'm sure it's more marketing driven. My understanding is that pretty much all of MHPE's work is in F1 engines, I don't know very much at all about Viry-Chatillon but I would guess they are a mostly F1 related operation as well. As such, there expertise would surely be more focused in small capacity high RPM engines that were F1 from 89-13.

[bhall II]

100% marketing...

"There has to be an intelligent business decision and of course the motivation is marketing," [Daimler AG Chairman, Dr. Dieter] Zetsche said. "We want to present our brand and we do believe there is no better place to present the brand than in our core marketing in our core business, which is engines, cars and therefore racing."

[sgth0mas]

It makes much more sense now. The actual technology in the F1 cars is a far cry from road cars, but if they can somehow relate the 2...the marketing is more effective. So F1 for manufacturers is not truly for R&D, but more to move a product.

That makes sense as to why rbr, sauber, williams and some of the others dont favor hybrids so much.