RE: No predictability in 2014 F1

[jon-]

GroundEffect said:

Here is one of the best previews as to how they will sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmKJ5MhDh8

Not quite what we have today, but sound good enough.

For reference, that 1988 car has a 1.5 Honda V6 Twin-Turbo limited to 2.5bar, producing 675BHP - 2014 engines will produce around 600BHP from their single turbo units and with single exhaust outlet they will sound a bit higher pitched.

I wonder what RPM that used to rev too?

I know a guy in the Merc engine building department, and while he won't state power figures he's happy they're up on this year, so I'd say 600bhp is on the low side. In quali they'll likely be running much more.

[virgilio]

for me the saddest part of the story is not the noise, but the fact that in 1988 they managed to get the same power from similarly sized engines with similar fuel consumption limits.

That was 25 years ago! So much for progress!

I have the impression that since Mosley (and later Todt) took over F1 is just becoming another NASCAR. Good for the show, but technologically pointless.

A few days ago I happened to read the Group C technical regulations (1982-1990): I was almost emoved by their simple perfection (basically: car cannot be bigger than X metres, fuel consumption is limited to ca. 50litres/100km, and that's it). Btw Porche got far more than 600bhp from an engine consuming ca.50litres/100km in 1982. The new F1 consumption limits amount to broadly 45litres/100km...

[oldtimer2]

A one make series of V8 Jaguar F-Types would sound much better.

[STiG911]

Ozzie Osmond said:

STiG911 said:

As someone who's stood next to a mid-80's F1 Turbo unit just on tickover, I can safely say that the proof will be in the track-side experience.

If it's a anything like the muted sound of low-revving Audi diesel turbos at Le mans it ain't going to be much!

Yep - stood next to one of the Le Mans Audi oil burners at Goodwood and it's MUCH better than that.

[STiG911]

virgilio said:

for me the saddest part of the story is not the noise, but the fact that in 1988 they managed to get the same power from similarly sized engines with similar fuel consumption limits.

Erm...in 1988 they were knocking out around 1000 - 1200 BHP. Not really similar.

[virgilio]

STiG911 said:

virgilio said:

for me the saddest part of the story is not the noise, but the fact that in 1988 they managed to get the same power from similarly sized engines with similar fuel consumption limits.

Erm...in 1988 they were knocking out around 1000 - 1200 BHP. Not really similar.

That was in 1986 (and only in qualification trim). In 1988 they had a 2.5bar limit on boost and stricter fuel consumption rules, so they were around 650-700hp. Anyway, what I meant is that there has been NO progress since then in terms of efficiency (so even if you were right that would just reinforce my argument)...

Edited by virgilio on Monday 4th November 15:30

[BT52]

STiG911 said:

As someone who's stood next to a mid-80's F1 Turbo unit just on tickover, I can safely say that the proof will be in the track-side experience. If the new (single turbo btw) units are even half as good as the older ones, they'll still sound awesome. And loud-as-f

Except they sounded rubbish. Even trackside.

The comparison between the NA cars and the turbos in 1988 was enough to put me of the sound of turbos for life.

There is a reason that the first thing James Hunt said at on the first lap of the first race of the 1989 season was "I have to say what a relief it is to hear them sounding like proper racing cars again".

[zeppelin101]

virgilio said:

That was in 1986 (and only in qualification trim). In 1988 they had a 2.5bar limit on boost and stricter fuel consumption rules, so they were around 650-700hp. Anyway, what I meant is that there has been NO progress since then in terms of efficiency (so even if you would be right that would just reinforce my argument)...

Apart from the fact that in 1988, they were allowed to use a whopping 55 litres more fuel than they are as of next year. For the same power output.

Still think there is no progress?

Edited by zeppelin101 on Monday 4th November 15:34

[Megaflow]

virgilio said:

STiG911 said:

virgilio said:

for me the saddest part of the story is not the noise, but the fact that in 1988 they managed to get the same power from similarly sized engines with similar fuel consumption limits.

Erm...in 1988 they were knocking out around 1000 - 1200 BHP. Not really similar.

That was in 1986 (and only in qualification trim). In 1988 they had a 2.5bar limit on boost and stricter fuel consumption rules, so they were around 650-700hp. Anyway, what I meant is that there has been NO progress since then in terms of efficiency (so even if you would be right that would just reinforce my argument)...

Yep, no progress at all.

Except a 1980's engine would just about do a race distance, 300 miles, then it was junk. A 2014 engine will do 2400 miles...

Assuming 600 miles per weekend, 20 races and 5 engines.

[DonkeyApple]

How will these cars fair against an M135i?

[BT52]

Megaflow said:

virgilio said:

STiG911 said:

virgilio said:

for me the saddest part of the story is not the noise, but the fact that in 1988 they managed to get the same power from similarly sized engines with similar fuel consumption limits.

Erm...in 1988 they were knocking out around 1000 - 1200 BHP. Not really similar.

That was in 1986 (and only in qualification trim). In 1988 they had a 2.5bar limit on boost and stricter fuel consumption rules, so they were around 650-700hp. Anyway, what I meant is that there has been NO progress since then in terms of efficiency (so even if you would be right that would just reinforce my argument)...

Yep, no progress at all.

Except a 1980's engine would just about do a race distance, 300 miles, then it was junk. A 2014 engine will do 2400 miles...

Assuming 600 miles per weekend, 20 races and 5 engines.

...and Mark Webber to not change his mind about retiring.

[philmots]

I don't see how the top level cars in Motorsport can be running with 600hp..

1000hp is a better figure, cars are getting slower year on year, where's progress.

Get rid of DRS too, or make it 50-75% less effective.

[CraigyMc]

Dog Star said:

mybrainhurts said:

1600...? Wow..

What's for 2015, four wheeled recumbent bikes?

Weren't the absolute turbo-nutter bd cars of the 80s 1.5 litres, and bunging out about 1000bhp?

Need to check on this...

[rastapasta]

Is there unlimited Bar pressure?

[BT52]

Although I am a big fan of that car (hence the username) it never made those power figures in 1983!

[goron59]

What F1 needs is bananas. And shells. Green and Red. And special parts of the track that make you go faster... none of that DRS bks.

[Megaflow]

BT52 said:

...and Mark Webber to not change his mind about retiring.

[GroundEffect]

jon- said:

GroundEffect said:

Here is one of the best previews as to how they will sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmKJ5MhDh8

Not quite what we have today, but sound good enough.

For reference, that 1988 car has a 1.5 Honda V6 Twin-Turbo limited to 2.5bar, producing 675BHP - 2014 engines will produce around 600BHP from their single turbo units and with single exhaust outlet they will sound a bit higher pitched.

I wonder what RPM that used to rev too?

I know a guy in the Merc engine building department, and while he won't state power figures he's happy they're up on this year, so I'd say 600bhp is on the low side. In quali they'll likely be running much more.

12,000rpm. I've got the dyno printout for the engine from an old SAE paper. It's very similar to what we should see.

Remember 600BHP then 160BHP in KERS (for 33 seconds per lap) so it should work out over 700BHP average for a whole race. That's still a lot. In quali they are still limited by the fuel-flow limits so I would expect very similar performance to race.

[Digga]

Thehandshake said:

The problem lies within the track design not cars. Bring back old Hockenheim and Imola and get rid of all the Playstation looking Tilke designs and everything will be ok.

I'd say it's more to do with aero than anything. You can't have close racing if cars can't consistently lap, er, close.

FWIW, I'd say 1.5 litres can sound good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK-MK3FREk4

[virgilio]

zeppelin101 said:

Apart from the fact that in 1988, they were allowed to use a whopping 55 litres more fuel than they are as of next year. For the same power output.

Still think there is no progress?

Edited by zeppelin101 on Monday 4th November 15:34

In 1988 they were allowed 150 litres, now 100kg, which could equal to anything between 130 and 140l depending on the fuel density. As such an improvement of 14% in the best case. Over 25 yeras that seems pathetic progress to me (a 2014 M3 should have ca. 220hp on the same basis...)

I agree with those who said that durability improved massively, but I don't see it as a major gain: fuel efficient engines are less stressed and easily more durable (think about Group C cars in 1982: same output, same consumption as 2014 f1 cars, 5000+km of durability over a single 24h race)!