Noisier & cheaper engines from 2021
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
Dr Z said:
Dr. Marko is making some noise about this.
F1 risks losing Red Bull over post-2020 engines - Marko
It's the usual posturing.
With the grid down to 10 teams, and that's giving second teams credit, and those lower down the grid suffering (and FI's boss not having the most reassuring of times) Marko thinks he'll threaten someone.F1 risks losing Red Bull over post-2020 engines - Marko
It's the usual posturing.
I got the impression that one of the advantages of having a 'cheap' engine, noisy or not, was to get other manufacturers interested. VW has made noises, BMW might not be far behind, so there are going to be a lot of sources.
If, and I think it is a big if, if RB do pull their cars then there might well be a lot of pretenders wanting a place on the grid, especially if engines are cheapish. Further, I bet some other regs are agreed which will reduce costs.
Perhaps someone should tell Marko not to close the door after him as there'll be a queue outside by 2020.
He really irritates me. I almost feel sorry for Horner. Almost.
CanAm said:
The purists will hate me for this, but I'd like to see an equivalency formula, with the non-factory teams allowed to use modified production car engines. The Chevrolet "small block" is over 7 litres now in some guises and could no doubt be stretched a bit more. That would give some interesting noise.
sorry but it just wouldn't fit, a chevy is a big old lump and very heavy compared to a pukka F1 effort you would be absolutely nowhere even if it had a 1000bhp.....The McLaren M10a weighed 585kg with an iron block Chevy and had a wheelbase of FOUR FEET LESS than the current F1 car. The SBC is now all aluminium. Are you telling me that a suitable equivalency formula couldn't be devised?
F1 hasn't always been restricted to one engine option; from the first formula of the 50s through to the 80s there were 2 engine size choices, not to mention the gas turbine option.
F1 hasn't always been restricted to one engine option; from the first formula of the 50s through to the 80s there were 2 engine size choices, not to mention the gas turbine option.
CanAm said:
The McLaren M10a weighed 585kg with an iron block Chevy and had a wheelbase of FOUR FEET LESS than the current F1 car. The SBC is now all aluminium. Are you telling me that a suitable equivalency formula couldn't be devised?
F1 hasn't always been restricted to one engine option; from the first formula of the 50s through to the 80s there were 2 engine size choices, not to mention the gas turbine option.
Which they've done to try and reduce costs since equivalency doesn't work unless you go down the Balance of Performance route. Which I'd absolutely hate F1 to do.F1 hasn't always been restricted to one engine option; from the first formula of the 50s through to the 80s there were 2 engine size choices, not to mention the gas turbine option.
An F5000 car from 1969 is a very different animal from a 2017 F1 car. How many crash & deflection tests did the F5000 have to pass?
GroundEffect said:
Which they've done to try and reduce costs since equivalency doesn't work unless you go down the Balance of Performance route. Which I'd absolutely hate F1 to do.
An F5000 car from 1969 is a very different animal from a 2017 F1 car. How many crash & deflection tests did the F5000 have to pass?
Reduce costs!? Well that certainly worked didn't it? F1 power units must be far and away more expensive now that they have ever been. And what is the weight of a current F1 power unit with all its turbos and energy recovery systems?An F5000 car from 1969 is a very different animal from a 2017 F1 car. How many crash & deflection tests did the F5000 have to pass?
Crash tests? About the same number as the F1 cars of its day - bugger all!
And a 1969 F5000 car was not that different from a 1969 F1 car; hardly different at all in the case of the McLaren M10/M7.
I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I'm not really serious; but I did prefer the days of variety in F1 engines, not to mention throwing F5000s in the mix sometimes.
But, given the choice, I bet Señor Alonso would like a nice big reliable V8 in the back of his McLaren.
I would assume that Liberty are looking to reduce costs for the teams to provide bigger grids and more competition for the slots. Pre-qualifying anyone?
The last time it was used I don't think it was seen as fair. It certainly didn't keep the numbers up, which I think was the intent. Mind you, the one thing that did improve was the standard of engineering for the also-rans, but that could be done in other ways, the 107% 'rule' for instance. There were three or four teams in with a shout and it made for an exciting time.
I've just looked it up. 1989, getting on for 30 years ago.I think it provided closer racing at the back of the field.
The run out of the turbo era gave us a dual forumla, with those teams which didn't have a turbo competing for a different championship. I was at Silverstone when Mansell, in a Judd engined Williams, put in the most committed lap I've ever seen. It shamed those in front of turbos.
Edited to add:
I Googled this: http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00016.html
Some good memories there and some names all but forgotten.
The last time it was used I don't think it was seen as fair. It certainly didn't keep the numbers up, which I think was the intent. Mind you, the one thing that did improve was the standard of engineering for the also-rans, but that could be done in other ways, the 107% 'rule' for instance. There were three or four teams in with a shout and it made for an exciting time.
I've just looked it up. 1989, getting on for 30 years ago.I think it provided closer racing at the back of the field.
The run out of the turbo era gave us a dual forumla, with those teams which didn't have a turbo competing for a different championship. I was at Silverstone when Mansell, in a Judd engined Williams, put in the most committed lap I've ever seen. It shamed those in front of turbos.
Edited to add:
I Googled this: http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00016.html
Some good memories there and some names all but forgotten.
Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 24th April 16:27
Didn't keep the numbers up ? Well, at Silverstone in '89, first year of a new F1 , there was a 26 car race grid , whittled down from a 39 car entry with 9 in pre qual . Seven different engines using 8, 10 or 12 cylinders and 20 different chassis.
I don't always wear my rose tinted specs, but having been to that race the sheer numbers, variety and exquisite(and very. very! ) noise was pretty damned exciting I can tell you.
I don't always wear my rose tinted specs, but having been to that race the sheer numbers, variety and exquisite(and very. very! ) noise was pretty damned exciting I can tell you.
coppice said:
Didn't keep the numbers up ? Well, at Silverstone in '89, first year of a new F1 , there was a 26 car race grid , whittled down from a 39 car entry with 9 in pre qual . Seven different engines using 8, 10 or 12 cylinders and 20 different chassis.
I don't always wear my rose tinted specs, but having been to that race the sheer numbers, variety and exquisite(and very. very! ) noise was pretty damned exciting I can tell you.
Exciting but unsustainable in a modern era - even assuming you could get a season cost down towards the €5M mark with customer cars, etc, could you sell to sponsors the risk of not qualifying?I don't always wear my rose tinted specs, but having been to that race the sheer numbers, variety and exquisite(and very. very! ) noise was pretty damned exciting I can tell you.
I'd like to see 24 or 26 cars again, but not sure I want pre-qualifying back.
I'd prefer some non-championship races. e.g. Monaco on a Friday with reserve/junior drivers.
Well , you have a point and people like Eddie Jordan can tell you just how tough it was , and whilst I wouldn't press for its reintroduction it was certainly an illustration of how attractive ,and relatively affordable Formula 1 was then I am not sure the world has changed so much since then - what has changed more is F1's increased insularity, its belief that it is no longer a part of motorsport , but a sport in its own right and its absolute inability for its participants to agree upon anything , ever .
coppice said:
Well , you have a point and people like Eddie Jordan can tell you just how tough it was , and whilst I wouldn't press for its reintroduction it was certainly an illustration of how attractive ,and relatively affordable Formula 1 was then I am not sure the world has changed so much since then - what has changed more is F1's increased insularity, its belief that it is no longer a part of motorsport , but a sport in its own right and its absolute inability for its participants to agree upon anything , ever .
I sort of take an opposite view... motorsport is even more successful than ever - f1, f2, etc.The problem is I don't see how you could make f1 that cheap without the lower formulae being much faster than f1, or compromising on safety?
I think we need to get it down to the sustainable cost that was promised to Marissa, etc... a £40M budget, but I'm not sure how it would be implemented.
I disagree actually because I think F1 now exists in a hermetic bubble, divorced from the rest of the motor sport universe . BTCC apart ,fewer people attend race meetings (or anything else- speed events, rallies etc )than at any time in the half century I have watched the sport . I welcome the rebranding - 30 years too late- of F3000.and GP 2 - to F2 but I still can't see F2 cars except at a GP. F3 was missing presumed dead but is showing signs of life again , and for that at least I am grateful.
The problem for me is that , as I think Simon Taylor so elegantly put it , is that F1 used to be the apex of a pyramid with FF1600 at the base, then F3 , and F2 straight under F1 . There was a natural progression , and you could see most people who made it at earler stages in career (I saw Hunt , Pace , Piquet etc in F3 , Senna and D Hill in FF.1600, Lauda in F2 etc) F1 is now its own pyramid- and it hoovers up nearly every dime of sponsorship cash but it then p**ses it all up the wall with insanely complex cars which cost too much to run and which rarely can overtake each other except with party tricks like DRS and undercuts .
The problem for me is that , as I think Simon Taylor so elegantly put it , is that F1 used to be the apex of a pyramid with FF1600 at the base, then F3 , and F2 straight under F1 . There was a natural progression , and you could see most people who made it at earler stages in career (I saw Hunt , Pace , Piquet etc in F3 , Senna and D Hill in FF.1600, Lauda in F2 etc) F1 is now its own pyramid- and it hoovers up nearly every dime of sponsorship cash but it then p**ses it all up the wall with insanely complex cars which cost too much to run and which rarely can overtake each other except with party tricks like DRS and undercuts .
coppice said:
Didn't keep the numbers up ?
Sorry to be too obscure for you.There are just 20 cars on the grid at present. In 1993 at Silverstone, the prequalifying was a bit of a non-event.
In other words, it was not a long term solution despite its attractions.
However, I think the idea has mileage if we can get to a situation where power units are cheaper, maybe cheap is too great a step. The proposed formula looks promising for that aspect. They need to get the aero costs sorted as well.
Or, of course, there's the hope of a real F2, a sort of stepping stone to the top level. Two teams up and two teams down; how much fun would that be?
Certainly the regs at the time of prequalifying could have been improved but the time was fun. Being at the circuit on the Friday and Saturday was quite exciting and the outcome was far from predictable at times.
If Liberty are indeed after improving the fans' experience then it is a distinct option.
Derek Smith said:
Or, of course, there's the hope of a real F2, a sort of stepping stone to the top level. Two teams up and two teams down; how much fun would that be?
One of the issues at the moment is that the 'stepping stones', or the ladder, or whatever you want to call it, is all geared towards drivers. There is no stepping stone for a team to jump into F1. All the lower formulae up to F2 are spec series, using off-the-shelf chassis and aero packages. If you want to jump form F2 to F1 you suddenly have to design and produce everything yourself. Where is the equivalent breeding ground for budding teams/constructors?For a team to jump from F2 to F1 is more a quantum leap than a stepping stone.
thegreenhell said:
One of the issues at the moment is that the 'stepping stones', or the ladder, or whatever you want to call it, is all geared towards drivers. There is no stepping stone for a team to jump into F1. All the lower formulae up to F2 are spec series, using off-the-shelf chassis and aero packages. If you want to jump form F2 to F1 you suddenly have to design and produce everything yourself. Where is the equivalent breeding ground for budding teams/constructors?
For a team to jump from F2 to F1 is more a quantum leap than a stepping stone.
F2 needs to be supported, not only with airtime and advertising but initially with a bit of money. As you say, F2 is a spec series. This needs to change in some manner. Not, perhaps, entirely 'build your own' but major mods allowed. It needs to go lower as well, with F3 being an introduction. For a team to jump from F2 to F1 is more a quantum leap than a stepping stone.
The lower formulae have been all but abandoned by the FIA over recent years and Liberty will, maybe, see them as an opportunity for long term support for their lead series.
There needs to be some rationalisation in the F-prefix series.
If the costs come down for F1 participation then there are all sorts of benefits.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/cosworth-lining...
Cosworth could be coming back in 2021.
Possibly as the 'independent' for teams like RB who don't want to build engines.
From memory the new engines were set to lose the exhaust heat recovery part (MGU-H) of the current engines, in addition to being twin turbo set ups. But I vaguely remember reading somewhere that there is some resistance coming from Honda to losing the MGU-H...
Cosworth could be coming back in 2021.
Possibly as the 'independent' for teams like RB who don't want to build engines.
From memory the new engines were set to lose the exhaust heat recovery part (MGU-H) of the current engines, in addition to being twin turbo set ups. But I vaguely remember reading somewhere that there is some resistance coming from Honda to losing the MGU-H...
Dr Z said:
From memory the new engines were set to lose the exhaust heat recovery part (MGU-H) of the current engines, in addition to being twin turbo set ups. But I vaguely remember reading somewhere that there is some resistance coming from Honda to losing the MGU-H...
And Ferrari, I think.The easiest way to make the engine nosier and cheaper?
Remove the turbos...
Of course that means a loss of power and viability with manufacturers, but what about a 2.5L v6 with a electric supercharger/generator like This Maybe make the cars plug in, so they start with a full charge? (like most hybrids)
No exhaust energy recovery, so louder.
Still powerful.
Still hybrid.
And is cheaper than a turbo and MGU-H unit currently used!
Remove the turbos...
Of course that means a loss of power and viability with manufacturers, but what about a 2.5L v6 with a electric supercharger/generator like This Maybe make the cars plug in, so they start with a full charge? (like most hybrids)
No exhaust energy recovery, so louder.
Still powerful.
Still hybrid.
And is cheaper than a turbo and MGU-H unit currently used!
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff