/f1/ - Formula One

Going back to the v8's would be nice but the money invested by Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault into these v6's would be wasted.

There is really nothing wrong with these engines, Just increase the fuel flow and raise the fuel limit to 150kg. It will increase the noise too as they would have more revs to play with.

Also, limit the engines to 4 a season would obviously make it hideously expensive as all the components would need to be almost bullet proof and that makes them even more expensive.

Increase the number of engines so that the overall cost of the engine is down and have some sort of standardization of some of the components like batteries, motor generator units or even the turbo.

>>6433

The lack of noise is because of the hybrid systems, not purely based on the revs being a few k lower this year. The energy that was lost in previous years is now being used to power the electric motor and harvest energy along with the BBW system.

>>6433

>>6447

Yeah, these engines are pretty shit.

>>6433

Why did they end refueling? Was the cars going fast too much fun?

>>6447

It's not like the old turbo engines were only loud when the turbo had peaked out (or only loud before it had peaked out). They where loud all the time. If modern turbos make the engines silent then removing KERS isn't going to help. The exhaust turbine doesn't know if what it's fighting against is the compressor or a KERS system, nor do the gasses passing through it that make the tail-pipe go wroom.

Given the 100 kg of fuel per race compared to the 150 or so during the 80s I'd say it's mostly because of less exhaust going out the pipe.

>>6449

The old turbo engines were loud not because they revved high or were turbos, but because they were raw power going through a straight exhaust. They weren't powering shit like the modern cars are.

If we took the V8s from the last few years and slapped the hybrid unit on them, they'd be quieter as well. The energy involved in making that raspy, throaty sound we all know and love it lost to the hybrid unit in the process of powering it.

It'd still be louder than what we have now though, that's for sure.

>>6449

>Why did they end refueling?

Strategy wise it created some pretty boring races.

Bringing these heavy refuelling rigs around the world was also a huge cost issue.

There was concerns about safety with pit stop fires.

Finally it just doesn't match what the manufacturer want to use F1 to market.

>>6450

>The old turbo engines were loud not because they revved high or were turbos, but because they were raw power going through a straight exhaust. They weren't powering shit like the modern cars are.

>raw power going through a straight exhaust

That is exactly what a turbocharger prevents by the mere act of existing.

>They weren't powering shit

They powered the compressor for the air intake. Compressing air at that rate takes a shit-ton of energy.

>If we took the V8s from the last few years and slapped the hybrid unit on them, they'd be quieter as well.

No. If you don't change the exhaust system and give them the same amount of fuel they will sound exactly the same. See the video and second to last paragraph.

>The energy involved in making that raspy, throaty sound we all know and love it lost to the hybrid unit in the process of powering it.

You don't know how engines work, do you?

First of all these aren't electric intermediate drives; the F1 engine powers the rear wheels directly through the gearbox, just as before. The difference is there is also an electric motor mounted in parallel with the engine that contributes some of the toque. The energy for the electric Motor Generator Unit comes primarily from braking. When the car brakes the unit acts as a generator; it runs heavy and slows the rear wheels down acting like an ordinary brake. The electric energy generated is stored in what's basically a battery and is then used to run the unit as a motor when the driver hits the throttle again. Part of the energy also comes from the turbo where a another MGU acts as rev-limiter for the turbo when accelerating. When the car brakes some of the energy is put back into turbo to keep it spinning at top speed, cutting down on turbo lag.

Secondly an engine does not know or care what it is used to run. Run an engine at the same rpm at the same load and it will sound the same, regardless of what causes that load. Be it driving the wheels of a F1 car, driving a generator or pumping fucking water, the engine doesn't know. In other words, even if the engine was only used to drive a generator that in turn drove an electric motor, like in some electric hybrids, it would still scream if it was an F1 V8 running at full throttle.

In case all of this is falling to deaf ears the embedded video is of a 2009 McLaren MP4-24 which had a V8 electric hybrid power unit, in other words the same kind of KERS that we see in the current cars. The differences are that it has no turbo (which makes it a lot louder), it has no fuel flow restrictions and of course it is also a 2.4 litre V8 as compared to a 1.6 litre V6. Yeah, I should probably explain this to you as well; turbochargers muffle the engine. They don't make it silent, as evident by the 1980s turbo cars, but take the turbo off and the engine will be a whole lot louder.

So, there. Hybrid technology isn't what stole your sound. What stole your sound is less fuel and smaller engines (and if the scream is what you like than also in part turbochargers).

>>6452

You are wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin, so I'll keep this short, sweet, and to the point.

The engines themselves DID have their loudness toned down(pun intended) by the addition of the hybrid system. The way the hybrid system works is by trapping those lost energies and powering the electric motor it has. KERs and the hybrid system ARE NOT the same thing, which makes you point of the 09' McLaren all the more silly and plain wrong.

Higher fuel flow, more cylinders, more pistons, more anything isn't what makes a car inherently loud.

Case in point rally cars. largely four bangers nowadays, but with an ear piercing screech and a throaty sound. They are a little bit under how loud the V8s were, and if you don't bring ear protection to an event, well then say goodbye to your hearing for the next few days.

>>6433

>Going back to the v8's would be nice but the money invested by Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault into these v6's would be wasted.

The engine suppliers that aren't winning and aren't finishing races with limited to no ability to change or improve that are losing more money than that easily just by keeping these rules.

>There is really nothing wrong with these engines, Just increase the fuel flow and raise the fuel limit to 150kg. It will increase the noise too as they would have more revs to play with.

These engines are the antithesis of formula 1. Formula 1 has always been a mostly open formula with engine displacement regulated.

>>6451

>Bringing these heavy refuelling rigs around the world was also a huge cost issue.

a cost issue easily mitigated by not having races in the middle of fucking nowhere and the races near each other on opposite sides of the calendar

>There was concerns about safety with pit stop fires.

the only time in recent history where this was a problem is when Benetton had a fire during Jos Verstappen's pit stop in 1994. That only happened because benetton cheated and took out a flow restrictor that made the system safe in order to have it pump faster.

>Finally it just doesn't match what the manufacturer want to use F1 to market.

Manufacturers love NASCAR even if it has nothing to do with what they market (see ford which makes 1 rear wheel drive passenger vehicle and toyota which uses the camry as its silhouette). Manufacturers will get involved in any series if it's a popular series.

You're not wrong, but those points aren't adequate to shoot down the idea of refueling.

>>6452

Not only does the turbocharger make the exhaust quieter, the hybrid unit also slows down the turbocharger and uses its heat and rotation to produce electricity. Moreover the hybrid system on the 2009 mclaren was flywheel based and has nothing to do with the present system.

STOP MAKING NEW RULES

all these restrictions whether on minimum engine weight, maximum fuel flow, number of cylinders, bank angle, number of valves, bore and stroke, or anything else are a blight on Formula 1.

We need to go back to a displacement based formula. It has just about always been 3.0 liter engine of any cylinder configuration, or a 1.5 liter turbocharged engine with a boost limit. When renault had it's turbocharged engine which was a v6, other teams did different things. Alfa romeo had a 1.5 liter v8, ferrari had a wide angle (120 degree) v6, bmw had an inline 4, as did hart.

Each different engine had different strengths and weaknesses. In having more cylinders, the alfa romeo engine was powerful and smoother so drivability was better. Ferrari's wide angle v6 allowed better flow to the turbochargers and thus less lag. BMW's inline 4 was pulled from used cars so it was a seasoned block and could take very high boost pressure, and could be mounted on its side for packaging and aero advantages. All while the cosworth DFV and other naturally aspirated engines had their own pluses and minuses.

Asymmetry of performance is the point of F1. The idea that one car is good at one thing, and weaker at another, but another car might be differently capable is the thing that keeps F1 cars within the same performance envelope without regulation, standardization, or spec cars.

>>6467

>You're not wrong, but those points aren't adequate to shoot down the idea of refueling.

I'm just giving the reasons the FIA gave whether I agree with them or not.

On the safety front I think the FIA brought up stuff like 2008 Singapore and 2007 Brazil (I think that one had an actual fire).

Also on a personal note I prefer the rapid pit stops we have now.

>>6473

Fair enough. Refueling hasn't been a part of formula 1 for most of its history anyway. I'd like it to return, but it's far less essential than restoring the old open formula.

>>6432

Few of the cars in that video are turbocharged. Most are cosworth v8 powered (the shadow, Williams, and Tyrrell cars to name a few)

>>6463

>so I'll keep this short

The reason you need to keep it short is you have no arguments in your favor.

>The engines themselves DID have their loudness toned down(pun intended) by the addition of the hybrid system.

No. The MGU-Kinetic has no, and can not have, any effect on engine sound or sound level because it is located outside the engine and connects to the drive train. The MGU of the turbo again sits outside the turbo and the only thing it can do is alter the RPM of the turbo and guess what? They still spin insanely fast because that's where they are most efficient.

The changes that have been made which will' affect engine sound are fewer cylinders, lower rpm, lower fuel flow and mandatory turbochargers. None of these things are necessitated by an electric hybrid system.

>The way the hybrid system works is by trapping those lost energies and powering the electric motor it has.

Gee, what a scientific explanation. The MGU-K traps energy from the rear axle instead of the brakes. What part do the rear brakes play in the F1 sound? The turbo MGU rev-limits, spools down and spools up the turbo. Given that the engines sound quieter in every range of the turbo the issue is clearly not the turbo RPM, and thus not the turbo MGU, but part of the problem it is possibly the turbo designs.

>KERs and the hybrid system ARE NOT the same thing

In the cases we a discussing they are the same thing and can be used interchangeably. Of course you can have you can have a KER system based around inertia and fluid compression and a million other things but those are not used in any of the cars we are discussing. In the case of that McLaren and the current F1 cars the electric hybrid system is the KERS. The entire purpose of the electric hybrid system in these cars is energy recovery.

>which makes you point of the 09' McLaren all the more silly and plain wrong.

This is rich given that it has exactly the same kind of electric hybrid power unit as the modern cars (except of course for the turbo MGU as it has no turbo) and despite it having that electric motor tacked on it is still loud as hell because there is not a single reason why adding a motor-generator somewhere in the drive train should change the way the combustion engine sounds. Take that car, add the MGU-K and the energy store of the modern cars, and it will sound the same because the combustion engine would still be exactly the same.

>Higher fuel flow, more cylinders, more pistons, more anything isn't what makes a car inherently loud.

Given all other things being the same this is just dead wrong. Of course you can take a higher power engine and muffle the fuck out of it, but a larger engine would still be louder than a weaker engine with the same muffling, and you can always make a more powerful engine louder than a weaker one. Always. That's simply how it is coming from the fact that you have more energy coming out of the engine that can be converted into sound energy.

>Case in point rally cars. largely four bangers nowadays, but with an ear piercing screech and a throaty sound. They are a little bit under how loud the V8s were, and if you don't bring ear protection to an event, well then say goodbye to your hearing for the next few days.

When was the last time you where at the track side listening to a F1? For 2014 a car would peak at 134 dB, meaning instant permanent hearing damage if you stood next to one giving full power. Loudness and what you perceive as cool are two different things.

>>6464

This. Adding to the reverberations you also have the factor of human hearing being more sensitive at higher frequencies for this range. To illustrate how things have changed:

The fasted F1 V12 could make 15,800 RPM, meaning a peak impulse frequency of 1,580 Hz.

In the final years of V10s they were limited to 19,000 RPM which again gives 1,580 Hz.

During the first years of V8s the limit was still 19,000 RPM, giving 1,270 Hz.

The current V6s are limited to 15,000 RPM, giving 750 Hz which is quite a difference. I haven't bothered measuring it myself but from the people who have the reports seem to be that to make it worse they rarely ever go over 13,000 RPM, meaning a peak of 650 Hz. That's an octave lower than even the V8s.

>>6467

>the hybrid unit also slows down the turbocharger

Which the waste gates did before anyway, and to its advantage the MGU will speed the turbo back up again much faster, but all of this is irrelevant. Were the old turbo engines only loud when the turbochargers reached max RPM? No. Did they stop being loud when the turbochargers reached max RPM? No. Consequently the ERS slowing the turbo down or speeding it up is a moot point because turbo RPM never had any significant effect on engine loudness.

It may be that the new turbo designs make the engines quieter than the old turbos would have, but if so just removing the MGU wouldn't help; you'd need a different turbo design (which would also be necessary because the new turbos are likely not very efficient without the MGU). Conversely putting a turbo MGU on an old turbo engine wouldn't make it silent (but the result would most likely not be nearly as efficient as the current turbos).

>and uses its heat and rotation to produce electricity.

Motor Generator Unit-Heat is a total misnomer. There is no temperature differential to electric potential conversion going on and it doesn't lower the exhaust temperature. Just like the MGU-Kinetic it harvests kinetic energy from a rotating axle, in this case from the turbine shaft, which is driven by the gas flow caused by a pressure differential between the exhaust and the atmosphere. Sure, the pressure is mainly created by heating air up in the cylinders but its not wasted heat that is captured in the turbo (and consequently any generator connected to it), its wasted pressure.

>the hybrid system on the 2009 mclaren was flywheel based and has nothing to do with the present system.

No. http://www.gizmag.com/formula-one-kers/11324/

>The system developed by McLaren in conjunction with Mercedes for the 2009 season is an electrical based hybrid system.

>>6492

>Few of the cars in that video are turbocharged.

Thanks for letting me know. I just searched for something to use in OP, seems it was a bad example.

>>6495

No, the reason is you're being an incredibly dense dipshit right now.

The HYBRID POWER UNIT is POWERED by the ENERGIES previously WASTED by the ENGINE in previous YEARS. This is WHY the motors are noticeable QUIETER. Not because they are a few k LOWER in REVs, or that's they're lower in CYLINDERS.

I mean holy fuck, how much easier can I make this sound to you, since you clearly don't get it(and probably never will.)

No one here has a problem with turbocharging. The issue people have is with the hybrid systems, which are a hamhanded attempt at advertisement, not actually sharing development with road engines, heavy, hot, short lived, lend themselves to poor packaging, and are not powerful enough to warrant their inclusion.

Moreover hybrid engines put a second engine in the car which violates the rule on only having one motor.

Hybrid systems have been used as driver aids as red bull was using kers as a traction control system in 2013.

This formula altogether needs to be scrapped. If you want a focus on energy efficiency, go to Formula E.

3litersNA/1.5 liter FI is the only formula that has allowed asymmetrical performance in the amount needed to have a roughly even field full of different cars.

>>6495

>>6498

You're not wrong, but neither is the other guy. The engine is in fact utilizing a lot of the wasted energy to power the motor, and that's why the sound is a lot less "in your face" so to speak. It's not purely reliant on engine specs, as engine specs are hardly the predominant factor in how loud a car is.

>>6499

>No, the reason is you're being an incredibly dense dipshit right now.

Nice projecting, man.

>I mean holy fuck, how much easier can I make this sound to you, since you clearly don't get it (and probably never will.)

Just how retarded are you? Is your perception of things that if you claim something people should just accept it? I've understood full well how you claim things to be but thing is you've not provided a single example of by what mechanism the hybrid technology in these cars is supposed to yield lower engine sound levels.

>The HYBRID POWER UNIT is POWERED by the ENERGIES previously WASTED by the ENGINE in previous YEARS.

What energies? Where? Through what means? How do you mean these energies would otherwise have gone towards generating sound? The simple fact is you can't explain any of these things because you simply don't know, and so you throw a tantrum.

>>6501

>The engine is in fact utilizing a lot of the wasted energy to power the motor, and that's why the sound is a lot less "in your face" so to speak.

Sadly you do the same things as the speaker above, although I must admit in a much preferable tone. You say something as if its true but you do not attempt to demonstrate why it is true. You're just vaguely talking about 'energies' and then you attribute some property to this and want people to just accept it. Let me demonstrate:

>The engine is in fact utilizing a lot of the wasted energy to power the motor, and that's why the tires wear out so fast.

>The engine is in fact utilizing a lot of the wasted energy to power the motor, and that's why the cars shoot sparks everywhere this season.

>The engine is in fact utilizing a lot of the wasted energy to power the motor, and that's why Red Bull keeps blowing up all the time.

See the problem? You make a claim but provide no explanation as for why the specific kind of energy recovery use in these cars should cause the effect you attribute to it. I have to ask you the same questions as above: What energies? Where? Through what means? How do you mean these energies would otherwise have gone towards generating sound?

>It's not purely reliant on engine specs

This is true.

>as engine specs are hardly the predominant factor in how loud a car is.

This is not. Engine power sets the physical limits of how much sound energy an engine can possibly produce. Like I said, you can of course muffle a car engine and remove the muffler on your lawnmower and the lawnmower would win but that doesn't change the fact that the car engine can easily be made much louder than the lawnmower engine could ever be even in the best of circumstances. When you move outside theoretical exercises this still holds true; higher performing race engines are nearly always louder than weaker ones of the same age, type and general design.

there are better things for us to fight over right now.

>>6512

Like what?

>>6513

Like the Formula altogether and what tracks would be better and what they should do in terms of fan outreach, instead of just what makes the engines loud.

>>6514

>Like the Formula altogether

Whatever rules make them louder.

>and what tracks would be better

Whichever have the most reverberating surfaces.

>and what they should do in terms of fan outreach

Make the engines louder.

>>6514

Well I'm not so sure on the formula

On the track front F1 is limited on grade one circuits. There is only a few that are not on the calendar and they all have legit reasons for not hosting or having an interest in hosting.

A lot of tracks people want aren't grade one for a reason. They are just not equipped with the correct infrastructure to host a large international event like an F1 race. People always says Brands Hatch or Donington but the facilities there are woeful and haven't been upgraded in ages.

The situation regarding Monza and the Nurburgring disappearing I think are slightly more complex then it seems. With the Nurburgring they are in a dire financial situation which has nothing to do with F1. I doubt the WEC race this year will even go ahead.

With Monza it is Bernie's usual tactics of persuasion.

FOM has got slightly better with their fan outreach. The rumours of Red Bull taking control of the whole thing could improve fan outreach though I'd be very tentative with them in control.

>>6517

>On the track front F1 is limited on grade one circuits.

If the FIA can change the car rules every minute, they can change the track rules. If the fans push for it, and it becomes a talking point it can happen.

>The situation regarding Monza and the Nurburgring disappearing I think are slightly more complex then it seems. With the Nurburgring they are in a dire financial situation which has nothing to do with F1.

Hans Joachim Stuck claims that Bernie fucked the nurburgring over less than 3 million euros (http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns30541.html)

Monza might be an empty threat. Ivan Capelli is going to find the money more likely than it will be dropped.

>FOM has got slightly better with their fan outreach. The rumours of Red Bull taking control of the whole thing could improve fan outreach though I'd be very tentative with them in control.

the Youtube account was a good start. if they make more in car cameras accessible and more live statistics available online that would be a good mood.

I am terrified of RedBull making f1 a show and a show only.

>>6522

>If the FIA can change the car rules every minute, they can change the track rules. If the fans push for it, and it becomes a talking point it can happen.

As I said a lot of the circuits are fine from a technical or safety aspect but they just do not have the infrastructure to host an event and that would have to require F1 to change not the circuit rules and become much smaller.

An F1 season is 20 super bowls or CL finals happening around the world. As cool as it would be to host the super bowl in your back garden it wouldn't work logistically.

Tracks have to be able to cater for the huge amount of fans coming in over the weekend. They have to cater for the humongous teams with all their lorries and equipment coming off planes constantly. They have to cater for all the worlds media and the hospitality. They are bigger then all other racing series.

The only series which is anywhere near the size and scale of F1 is WEC and that is why WEC only races on one Grade 2 track (Le Mans) despite not technically being a Grade 1 series.

I've been to Spa and I've been to Brands Hatch. The difference in quality is massive.

>>6524

How do they handle street circuits then? surely a ton of temporary pit garages is not up to par? I know what you mean though. I've raced at lime rock park and been flummoxed by how they ran imsa GTP races there.

Mugello is fia grade one so i suppose that or imola could be a stand in for monza. Imola stood in for monza in 1980.

I recall hearing that circuit mont tremblant had facility upgrades planned to be FIA grade 1.

>>6524

Forgot to ask. For circuits that are considered 2 +1T does that indicate that facilities are not up to par, or that the circuit itself is not ostensibly safe enough for F1? If it's the former, then Estoril, Jerez, Eurospeedway Lausitz (really though? they had well attended CART races there), Vallelunga, and Zandvoort are all potential contenders for the calendar given sufficient investment.

>>6525

Monaco is the only one with a temporary pit buildings and Monaco does not agree with any track rules the FIA sets.

For all the other circuits the buildings are there and get used for other non-racing things during the year.

Mugello is owned by Ferrari so yeah that would be a good bet as a replacement.

>>6526

I think it is the former.

Estoril recently upgraded to full grade 1 and I think it would great replacement for any of the non-european circuits at the end of their contracts or to be in a rotation for the european grand prix but Azerbaijan can pay for a proper contract.

>>6498

>Motor Generator Unit-Heat is a total misnomer. There is no temperature differential to electric potential conversion going on and it doesn't lower the exhaust temperature. Just like the MGU-Kinetic it harvests kinetic energy from a rotating axle

THIS

The "heat energy" shit pisses me off so much.

>>6528

Because that isn't the full rules and full rules don't exist.

The FIA inspects the track and so it is down to charlie whiting and all the other member of the FIA to decide on it when they go to inspect it. They will use this as a base reference but a lot of it will be just them.

There won't be a hard rules that states how the corners must be designed you just have to get it past the inspectors who will be same every time and have their own agreed limits.

I imagine a decent bit of cash on the side helps if you want to get things through in time. All these inspections cost and you have to pay every year to renew your license as well.

A lot of circuits host Moto GP/WSBK as well and so you have to get circuits changes also past the FIM as well.

>>6532

>>6528

Perfect example

>7.8 Protective measures

>When determining measures intended for the protection of spectators, drivers, race officials and service personnel during competitions, the characteristics of the course should be taken into consideration (track layout and profile; topography; racing trajectories; adjacent areas, buildings and constructions) as well as the speed attained at any point of the track.

>The FIA can provide advice on the above, after examination of the proposed layout in each case on request from the ASN of the country of the projected circuit.

They don't publish the full ruleset and you will have to speak to them.

The MotoGP/WSBK is a large part for a lot of the runoff area problems.

Bikes go fucking mental when they hit gravel and will just start tumbling through the air being a bigger danger to everyone.

It's better for the bike and the rider to just scrub off speed when they fall by sliding over run off before hitting a barrier or a smaller gravel pit right at the edge of the run off

>>6532

Gay.

>>6533

Even gayer. I hate that you're right. Not because i want you to be wrong, but because I don't want this to be the case.

>>6535

I imagine this document is more just so that they have somewhere to put a rule in case they say it publicly and they need to make it official.

They will just casually mention that that they personally 'don't allow straights longer than 2km' to the press and when they get questioned where that is in the official regulations they will put it in Appendix O so it can be referenced later.

>>6449

One of the former changes I do agree with is removing the in-race refueling. The refueling rigs were pretty unreliable and sometimes dangerous. Almost every race you'd see one or two incidents where the hose wouldn't lock in place or where it'd get stuck trying to pull out or there would be small fuel spills. The 100kg fuel limit on the other hand is far too low.

>>6588

that's because he hit the kerb and the suspension rebounded, not because "muh hybrid engines, so much torque, very hard to drive".

Still a second engine in the car, still a waste of time, money, resources, and not even the most fuel efficient direction to take.

>>6602

That greentext was quoting not for some form of sarcasm.

The same style tyre marks popped up a few years ago when the whole thing about Red Bull having traction control started.

>>6605

sorry I misinterpreted.

I want V10s. They sound better.

>>6605

so maybe ….

vettel has the "Traction control" skill ?

>>6774

no, the reasoning was that there is some kind of oscillation that deforms the tyres and leaves that kind of mark on the ground as it puts the power down. There is so much torque coming from the electrical motor that the rubber has it's work cut out in the traction zones.

>>6773

3.5 liter formula had a beautiful diversity of v8s, v12s, v10s of various bank angles.