Is the V6 formula a disaster for F1?

[Andres125sx]

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.

Sorry but it´s not me how talked about current PUs providing more torque than V8s, but F1 drivers

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.

I did, this is what you posted

The torque levels that these V6s provide make it harder to drive than the EBD V8s planted to the floor, and that's a good thing for entertainment.

Spurious torque claims notwithstanding, I've seen this, or something like it, stated many times since last year. But, I don't understand how such a view can be so pervasive when the drivers themselves don't seem to agree.

[a bunch of quotes from F1 drivers saying how easy to drive are current cars]

What I mean is you´re trying to put down current engines, or trying to prove current engines torque is not higher than previous ones, based on quotes from drivers saying today cars are too easy to drive. They are, but not beause of the PUs, but despite them

Let´s agree current PUs are not more difficult to drive, but they´re not easier either, so they can´t be a disaster for F1 or the main problem for F1, wich is the subject of the thread. So if we all agree F1 today probably is too easy, the problem is not current V6 engines. I´ve been hearing/reading F1 drivers opinions in the same line of all the quotes you posted for a lot more time than last 2 seasons, so it´s pretty obvious there are bigger problems than current PUs

It´s mainly downforce reduction what made current cars easier to drive, discussing about torque is useless, I really don´t care if they provide more torque or not, but they´re not easier to drive, and they´re not a disaster for F1. The real disaster for F1 are current tires, current price distribution, maybe current reduced downforce, and even current men in charge, but not current PUs

[sgth0mas]

I think people are confusing 2 different types of diffuculties...technically challenging and physically challenging.

The V6 may be technically challenging...like say controlling an airplane (alonsos words not mine). But this era of cars is not physically demanding. Its too much management of fuel, tires and brakes. When racers lift and coast for several laps...its obvious they arent being physically challenged. But aero and tires have a bit to play in the reduced physical demands as well.

I havent seen many people talk about the huge cost of these new PUs either. If prize distribution is a problem...so are runaway engine costs.

[bhall II]

What I mean is you´re trying to put down current engines, or trying to prove current engines torque is not higher than previous ones, based on quotes from drivers saying today cars are too easy to drive. They are, but not beause of the PUs, but despite them

Let´s agree current PUs are not more difficult to drive, but they´re not easier either, so they can´t be a disaster for F1 or the main problem for F1, wich is the subject of the thread. So if we all agree F1 today probably is too easy, the problem is not current V6 engines. I´ve been hearing/reading F1 drivers opinions in the same line of all the quotes you posted for a lot more time than last 2 seasons, so it´s pretty obvious there are bigger problems than current PUs

With all due respect, you really need to spend some time studying the relationship between torque and horsepower before you accuse me of anything. It may just change your thoughts on the matter.

Until then, I will not agree that current PUs are anything less than easier to drive, and I will not agree that current PUs have played anything other than a starring role in F1's current dilemma.

(And I'd appreciate it if you would please stop attributing to me claims that I've not made for myself. Even if that wasn't my biggest pet peeve, which it is, I'm perfectly willing and able to let everyone know exactly where I stand.)

[Phil]

The dilemma was heading for F1 anyway, with or without the the starring role of the new V6T engines... Without them, Honda may not have entered (and thus bringing lots of money into the sport or to McLaren), Mercedes might have considered an exit (they were the ones that pushed for more road-relevant engines and to be able to exploit their advantage), as well as perhaps eventually Renault too. In fact, with Audi being rumoured to be thinking about entering the sport, the new "formula" has become a lot more attractive for engine manufacturers. In some form or another, and as much as I hate it, the V8 and everything before it was a dying bread.

The V6T might have accelerated the current dilemma by significantly adding costs short-term wise, but I'm not convinced the future was anything but grim long-term to start with they way things have been heading since a long time. And this is where the discussion shifts back to fairer price money distribution, cost control etc...

[mrluke]

Torque is irrelevant, its power that makes the car move.

+1 on bhalls comment above.

[bhall II]

As for Bhall's arguments; I still fail to see how the V6T would be that similar...

Where did I say anything of the sort?

Is today "International Put Words in Ben's Mouth Day"?

Look:



A flat power curve, or wide power band, makes for easier driving, because power delivery is more consistent, predictable, flexible, and it allows for more linear progressions throughout the entire RPM range. This is in stark contrast to a "peaky" power curve, or narrow power band, that has a limited window for max power, which can vary wildly between even relatively close RPM ranges.

The former NA engines were "peaky" as hell because they created tons of power with insane speed and absurd oversquare stroke ratios instead of larger displacements (or ERS).

"Power comes from speed; torque without speed is nothing." ~ Mauro Forghieri

[turbof1]

I'll drop a complementary clue: check on youtube the new koenigsegg. Check why it does not have gearbox. Perhaps that'll lighten up a few brains!

Is today "International Put Words in Ben's Mouth Day"?

We'll make that a yearly event

[ojlopez]

I don't think that the engines are the problem, but the regulations. You have a max fuel flow that indirectly limits boost, shitty tires that degrade after a couple of laps, and limited engines that makes them really expesive and can't be pushed to the limit. Those are the problems I think that makes current F1 boring, hearing "coast down, save fuel, save tires, etc" over the radio is not exciting. You should be hearing "pedal to the metal, push harder you wuss, etc".

[Tim.Wright]

At the risk of starting another torque vs power debate, I do agree with Ben that a flatter torque curve is easier to drive. In terms of drive-ability, torque is the correct parameter to look at because it relates directly and proportionally to the tyre force and therefore the grip condition of the car.

For top speed performance you need to look at power but that's not the point in dicussion here.

Basically the tyre traction force, in a mid corner condition, is a proportional to the engine torque. The engine torque is primarily a function of 2 variables being engine speed and throttle position [%]. In other words its response it not a line graph but a 3D map:


One variable (throttle position) is directly controlled by the driver, the other (engine speed) is not. Any torque variation with engine speed means that the the engine is changing the rear axle grip condition without the driver's request. On the other hand, a flat torque curve removes the engine speed dependency on the engine torque and therefore the rear axle grip condition and makes it largely dependent only on the throttle position - i.e. completely in the driver's control and therefore easier to control.

Turbo engines typically have flatter power curves because once the boost levels out, the cylinder pressures remain more or less constant and therefore so does the torque.

[Phil]

A flat power curve, or wide power band, makes for easier driving, because power delivery is more consistent, predictable, and flexible, and it allows for more linear progressions throughout the entire RPM range. This is in stark contrast to a "peaky" power curve, or narrow power band, that has a limited window for max power, which can vary wildly between even relatively close RPM ranges.

There are two arguments at play here: One is the engine characteristic and power delievery, the other is how much power is available at a given speed. You are correct with the above explanation, a peaky power delievery will be more challenging than one that is more linear over a wider rev-range. That's only one half of the story though.

The graph you posted is interesting. Not sure however what the red and yellow areas are highlighting other than a comparable power-output range. None of the F1 cars are actually driven in that rev-range (the red highlighted area), much less in corners. From on-board footage I've seen, typical engine speed hover between 8000 and 12000 rpm in the V6T. Of course, we aren't interested in areas of the track that are power limited (e.g. the driver is flat out through corners) - there it makes squat difference which engine is in the back of the car as both will be at max power. We're more interested in corners where the revs actually drop into the lower range.

As I said about the two arguments; one is power delievery, the other is power availability at a given speed. If we take 3/4 revs - in the V6T @ 9000rpm (12000/4*3), it's ~690bhp, in the V8 @ 1350 (18000/4*3), it's ~530bhp. So as a result, the engine is producing more power (160bhp more) in a larger rev-range than the V8 does. What does this mean? This means that when a driver is driving into a corner at speed x and is traction limited (or close to), the V6T, once the driver goes onto throttle, will be delievering more power - meaning faster acceleration, more load and hence more likely to break traction. To counter this, you either apply less throttle (more controlled) or go into a higher gear which will drop revs to a lower rpm and power range which is exactly what drivers seem to be doing.

[Cold Fussion]

Sorry but it´s not me how talked about current PUs providing more torque than V8s, but F1 drivers

F1 drivers don't understand torque, they'd probably believe you if you told them torque is energy. F1 drivers and tv commentators don't have any real technical understanding.

[bhall II]

As I said about the two arguments; one is power delievery, the other is power availability at a given speed. If we take 3/4 revs - in the V6T @ 9000rpm (12000/4*3), it's ~690bhp, in the V8 @ 1350 (18000/4*3), it's ~530bhp. So as a result, the engine is producing more power (160bhp more) in a larger rev-range than the V8 does. What does this mean?

It means one of those cars isn't geared properly.

If, at any given throttle position/gear selection, the V6t has significantly more power in reserve than the V8, then either the V6t's gear ratios are too long or the V8's ratios are too short, because two cars with more or less the same horsepower should have more or less the same performance capabilities, regardless of torque/power band/whatever.

[mrluke]

At the risk of starting another torque vs power debate, I do agree with Ben that a flatter torque curve is easier to drive. In terms of drive-ability, torque is the correct parameter to look at because it relates directly and proportionally to the tyre force and therefore the grip condition of the car.

Interesting because the V8 has the flatest torque curve:



While the V6T has a falling torque curve, this is based on the "self sustaining" mode from the cosworth image above.

However I maintain that torque is of no relevance to this discussion.

If I said that two cars exit a corner, one has a maximum of 200ftlbs available and the other has 350ftlbs available, which one will accelerate the quickest, you would be unable to answer.

Whereas if I said one has 700bhp available and the other has 800bhp available it would be quite easy to tell. Assuming in both cases available traction etc is identical.

EDIT: the thing about a flat torque curve is it means power rises linearly with rpm so if you use 100% throttle the power is fed in progressively a bit like traction control. Whereas with a flat power curve you have to manage when you can go to 100% throttle (suspect this is done by the mgu-k at the moment but shh)

As I said about the two arguments; one is power delievery, the other is power availability at a given speed. If we take 3/4 revs - in the V6T @ 9000rpm (12000/4*3), it's ~690bhp, in the V8 @ 1350 (18000/4*3), it's ~530bhp. So as a result, the engine is producing more power (160bhp more) in a larger rev-range than the V8 does. What does this mean?

It means one of those cars isn't geared properly.

If, at any given throttle position/gear selection, the V6t has significantly more power in reserve than the V8, then either the V6t's gear ratios are too long or the V8's ratios are too short, because two cars with more or less the same horsepower should have more or less the same performance capabilities, regardless of torque/power band/whatever.

+1

[Andres125sx]

What I mean is you´re trying to put down current engines, or trying to prove current engines torque is not higher than previous ones, based on quotes from drivers saying today cars are too easy to drive. They are, but not beause of the PUs, but despite them

Let´s agree current PUs are not more difficult to drive, but they´re not easier either, so they can´t be a disaster for F1 or the main problem for F1, wich is the subject of the thread. So if we all agree F1 today probably is too easy, the problem is not current V6 engines. I´ve been hearing/reading F1 drivers opinions in the same line of all the quotes you posted for a lot more time than last 2 seasons, so it´s pretty obvious there are bigger problems than current PUs

With all due respect, you really need to spend some time studying the relationship between torque and horsepower before you accuse me of anything. It may just change your thoughts on the matter.

No need, I perfectly understand it. If I can´t explain myself properly on a language wich is not my native is a different matter tough

Until then, I will not agree that current PUs are anything less than easier to drive

Generally speaking, yes, they are easier to drive. Around a corner, no, they´re easier to over-throttle and more prone to cause a spin. That´s my point.

Peaky engines have a narrower useful band, ok. But when you´re talking about racing in speed tracks, that becomes a minor problem because they perfectly know where to do each gear shift, and even if they need to use the gearbox more extensively, that may be a problem with H-pattern gearboxes that were prone to driver mistakes. With semi-automatic gearboxes that´s not a problem anymore, they can´t fail (drivers)

But an engine with more torque, wich is easier to drive on general driving, is also more prone to go beyond grip and cause an oversteer or a spin, and that still is a problem on speed tracks, no matter what gearbox they´re using or how talented the driver is, it´s a posibility wich is easier to happen with V6T hybrid engines than it was with V8 engines

and I will not agree that current PUs have played anything other than a starring role in F1's current dilemma.

I love that dilemma . I hated the trusty V8s that never caused any problem because they were tested for 7 years and any reliability problem had been solved. To me motorsports should always include some engineering battle, and F1 had become a motorsport with no engine prominence at all, nosense. Engineering battles means not only drivers go to the limit, but also engineers, and that causes reliability problems, something we didn´t enjoy in the frozen engines era . That´s how F1 is today, Mercedes did the better job, and all the rest need to catch up, what include some manufacturers trying to push the limits, test new solutions, and making mistakes (Honda)

I like it a lot more than frozen engines, it´s another battle inside same championship

(And I'd appreciate it if you would please stop attributing to me claims that I've not made for myself. Even if that wasn't my biggest pet peeve, which it is, I'm perfectly willing and able to let everyone know exactly where I stand.)

Sorry if I did that it was not on purpose, only a misunderstanding

[Phil]

Edit: reply directed at bhall. (I'm on the mobile)

That isnt true. Power is never constant, but varies depending on the rev range. I dont need to tell you that different engines produce different power curves. In this case, the V6T in the upper 50% of the rev range produces on average more power than the V8, despite give or take identical max power output at maximum revs.

Gearing is dictated in this case by max speed. Given a scenario where both cars have same number of gears and give or take same expected Vmax, you will end up with rather similar ratios. The V8 might aim to stay in its upper rev-range, as might the V6T to minimize falling outside of the power band, but it still doesnt change that the V6T is closer to its peak in power delievery than the V8 engine - which as explained above - means more power at the given speed assuming optimal gearing in either case.

Longer gear ratios = larger drop in revs per gear change
Shorter gear ratios = smaller drop in revs, but lower vmax too.