Looking at the new engine formula…
11th November 2011, 17:50 at 5:50 pm #130467
…what if it turns out to be a disaster for the sport? I mean, none of us really know what to expect at this point, both power- and soundwise. The thing is, of course we already had turbo-powered engines back in the eighties, but F1 was not nearly as big as it has become since then, mainly because of the trademark sound the cars make. You can ask just about anyone on the planet with access to a tv what Formula 1 cars sound like, and they’ll probably get it right (well, mostly)… there’s no denying the screaming sound of the V10 is dearly missed by us F1 fanatics, but most casual listeners probably never even noticed a difference after 2005 and years beyond, after all, they are still “screaming” engines… but THAT is exactly where I’m headed, these new engines will not have a scream at all. Being turbo engines they were never going to make a sound like anything we’re used to, because of their low-revving nature, they are expected to run between 10.500 and 13.000rpm from what I read, so the rev limit of 15.000rpm will not even matter much.
So, to get to my question at last. What if it turns out to be a disaster? I know chances are people will simply embrace it and take it for what it is, but I’m not quite convinced yet… so what IF? What if FOTA gets together for emergency meetings, what if Ecclestone is on tv speaking his mind (he has been against the new rules from the very beginning) or what if even the FIA have no other choice but to admit they made a terrible mistake? What if…?13th November 2011, 11:16 at 11:16 am #184439
The only mistake they’ve made with the new engine regulations is choosing mundane antiquated V6 turbo power over something far more exciting and innovative like hydrogen power. As good as the V10s sounded, that ethos is just not compatible with the world anymore. Such extortionate use of a finite resource should not be promoted by F1 as “desirable”. By adopting Hydrogen power F1 would have gone a long way to doing us all a favour. But as usual the sport remains behind on any advances – just look how long it took them to switch to HD. Such a bold move was not to be expected.13th November 2011, 11:37 at 11:37 am #184440
While I agree with what you have said, JCF1, I think hydrogen fuel cell technology is still too nascent to be used. It would probably be akin to the first F1 race being held in the late 19th Century.
If anything I’d like to see it work it’s way into Endurance racing in the next decade, since that particular branch of motorsport probably has a better claim to being able to develop road-going technology.
Although in said that, I don’t think any manufacturer runs by the “Win on Sunday, sell on Monday” ethos anymore.13th November 2011, 11:49 at 11:49 am #184441
I see what you’re saying, but surely the highly competitive, wealthy environment of F1 would bring the technology along no end. I agree that currently endurance racing is more road relevant, just shows through how many manufacturers are joining.13th November 2011, 15:47 at 3:47 pm #184442
I think it would be fun if they ran the turbo engines on some sort of high powered bio fuels. That way F1 could be clean, green and still be a paradise of noise and power. I think that would be brilliant.
Not that hydrogen fuel cells wouldn’t be interesting, but it would still be an electric motor. I would hate to see F1 cars drive around at a million kilometres per hour and only making a high pitch buzz. I want it to vibrate all the way through my seat!
Maybe a turbine engine would be fun as well. But the turbulence an engine like that would make behind it would probably make it impossible to overtake.13th November 2011, 16:32 at 4:32 pm #184443
Bio-fuel? Green? Pah. Uses massive amounts of water, needs aquatic life-form destroying fertilizers, causes massive soil erosion. It’s the Toyota Prius of fuels; seems like a good idea in use but very damaging to produce.
Back on topic though, the new engines will probably be fine, don’t V6’s almost always sounds great?
Colin Chapman experimented with a turboshaft, it would work in theory but the high-pitched noise would likely be unbearable, especially if you don’t like the idea of the electric motor. Unless you mean a batmobile style turbojet? In which case that would be the most insane, shortest race ever, but definitely worth watching.13th November 2011, 16:43 at 4:43 pm #184444
I really dont like the sound of the current engines (I actually think they sound better when they’re farting through corners), so a return of some beefier sounding lower revving V6’s is a good thing imo.
Hydrogen would be too much of a step backwards in any case for F1, even putting the noise to one side they wouldn’t be fast enough. Turbos worked in the 80s because it’s basically just bolting a go faster part onto the car. Don’t the teams already have to have a certain amount of biofuel in their mixture?13th November 2011, 22:49 at 10:49 pm #184445
F1 could do a lot more to reduce their damage to the environment by changing the calendar. Circuits could be paired up geographically, with their races taking place on consecutive weekends to discourage flying back to Europe, followed by a two- or three-week break. It seems crazy that the Canadian and American Grands Prix are four months apart on next year’s calendar – Canada is sandwiched by two European races, and the emissions from flying there and back are many times greater than the emissions from the V8 engines. I don’t mind the move to V6s, and I’m glad they’re not jumping to biofuel, which is harmful to the environment in its own way and is exacerbating the global food shortage as arable land is shifted from food production to biofuel production.14th November 2011, 5:09 at 5:09 am #184446
The problem with that is that a lot of the races consider themselves to be in direct competition with one another. Singapore and Malaysia think that way, as do Abu Dhabi and Bahrain, and China, Korea and Japan.
As for the Canadian and United States Grands Prix being four months apart, that will only be for one year. In 2013, the Grand Prix of America – in New Jersey – will join the calendar and be twinned with Montreal. Plus, Austin in June is incredibly hot, so the United States Grand Prix cannot be twinned with Montreal in June. And Montreal is November is ridiculously cold to the point where the St. Lawrence River would freeze over, so moving it to the end of the calendar to join Austin is equally impractical.14th November 2011, 10:43 at 10:43 am #184447
I don’t know where the track ‘owners’ get the idea they are in competion with each other. I have friends who live in Lammersdorf, near the Belgium Germany border about 20 miles from Spa and 30 miles from the Nurburgring. A two week (max) holiday with them could fit in both races, but no they go to Hungary in the middle and have their summer holidays. Squashing that idea completely flat.14th November 2011, 22:38 at 10:38 pm #184448
I get what you’re saying, but they could re-shuffle the calendar to find a time when the climate is suitable for both them. According to Wikipedia, the average temperature spread for May in Austin is 18.6-29.3 degrees C, which is hot, but not unbearable. For comparison, next year’s Bahrain race, if it goes ahead, will take place in late April, which has a temperature range of 21.5-29.2 deg C. Montreal would only have to be moved back a month to be in May, so that shouldn’t be a huge problem.
I’m glad that Canada will be twinned with the New Jersey Grand Prix, but I’m against any country having more than one race! I guess I’m hard to please :)
(Thanks for the friend request by the way – I appreciate it, but I thought I’d wait to actually get to know you a bit before accepting it)14th November 2011, 23:32 at 11:32 pm #184449
Oh man, what a travesty V6 turbos will be! And what if they make an even bigger mistake and go for a straight 4 with a turbo? Oh wait… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niQ26ASiVT4
Oh yeah, and it won the championship in ’83 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT52
F1 is in no danger. The sound is in no danger. Be patient. Be open to change. The world will not end.15th November 2011, 12:29 at 12:29 pm #184450
@Estesark – this is all that you need to know: I’m one of the usual suspects, the long-term members that may well have been here since before Keith was. There’s a whole group of us, and nobody’s really sure when we got here, only that we’re a part of the scenery.17th November 2011, 18:26 at 6:26 pm #184451
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.