Millions of dollars in R&D for 0.4seconds…

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blake
  • 16 comments
  • 823 views
Blake

Blake

Premium
Messages
10,976
Australia
NSW, Australia
Messages
haswell00
Over the last year and a half, millions have been spent researching, developing, and testing the new 2.4 litre V8 engine configuration that the FIA has implemented.

So what did the FIA acheive? Apart from scaring off 3 of the most passionate teams in Formula 1, that is…

Well, Jenson Button happens to be a really reliable control in answering this question, as he happens to hold both the outright lap record at Barcelona, and the V8 lap record at Barcelona.

The two times?
V10 – 1:13.552s
V8 – 1:13.935s

Yep, a whole 0.383 seconds. Discuss.
 
well.....with the slimmer V8 package, the bodywork is getting tighter and tighter to the internals........soon we will be back to the cigar cars of the old days (early 70's and before) if this slimming down contenues :D

i think that there should just be a size restriction on the engines.....like, say it has to be a 3.0L engine but the teams could choose any style they want...V8, V10, V12 and so on......would make an interesting mix with the radical aero bits we are seeing these days :D
 
I can´t understand how the FIA failed to see this coming at the very beginning of this whole deal. It´s just simple logic. V8 = lighter, can sit lower in the car, wich means lower COG and better overall balance, wich means higher cornering speeds. And since cornering speeds is what the FIA wanted to lower in the first place, I just don´t get their way of thinking.
They have to be up to something that I can´t grasp. Thats the way things usually go.
 
Team666, the V8 engine is heavier than the V10, and probably has a higher Centre of Gravity. This is because a minimum weight, and minimum CoG for the engine are specified in the technical regulations, which they were not with the V10 configuration.

Also, many materials are already specified in the technical regulations, reducing the ability for teams to use lighter, more exotic materials to construct certain parts of the engine.
 
Most of the truly exotic materials were banned in the V10:s also.

@ Blake. Now that you mension it, I remember reading something about the weight specs and CoG specs of the V8, probably on formula1.com, stating just what you said. So what has changed then? I know the engineers are great at this, and will always make up for anything lost, but the V8:s has to make the cars better balanced, or those speeds would be impossible.
On a sidenote I read that the FIA was considering a lighter formula for the cars from -07 or -08, reducing the overall weight with at least 50 kg, wich plays in the same league of logic as the V8 configuration. Does the FIA want to reduce cornerspeeds or topspeeds? Who knows?
 
The main difference is the tyres. Softer tyre compounds can be used this year.
 
And tyre stops, so softer compounds. i think this V8 regulation was brough in to redice costs, which is what the FIA is always wanting to do these days. and also, that V10 restriction thing was brought in to help teams such as minardi, but now they have been brought by Red Bull it's a little stupid. And Since Mclaren's new V8 isnt as reliable as they'd like it, they are thinking about using a V10r in the first few races. Or so Autosport says :lol:.
 
The main thing that has kept costs skyrocketing is the FIA's insistence on changing the rules each year. This is ridiculous, and needs to stop. All of the teams, and also tire manufacturers, just want some consistency. That's the key to keeping costs down; building on what you've already got. Now, very frequently, they have to start from scratch to adhere to new regulations. And as we can see, the cars are nearly as fast, and just as safe as they already were. So yeah, it's millions of dollars spent to accomplish what again?

Oh well. Two more weeks until Bahrain!! :D
 
On F1racing.net

F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone says the engine rule changes for 2006 which have seen 3-litre V10 engines replaced by 2.4-litre V8s. Ecclestone believes the change has been a costly mistake for the sport but that the teams have only themselves to blame.


Ecclestone believes the same goals could have been achieved for far less cost by limiting the revs on the current breed of V10 engines - in a similar way to what Scuderia Toro Rosso will do this year.

"I don't like the rule," Ecclestone told Autosprint magazine. "It wasn't necessary because they could have reached the same goal by limiting the power of the old V10s. the new V8s cost a fortune and eventually we'll probably end up limiting their revs because they will become too powerful."

"By just limiting the V10s we could have saved lots of money," he added. "There was a meeting with all the teams to discuss reducing costs and it went badly. The main idea was that by limiting engine capacity by 20 per cent we'd have seen a similar reduction in costs and power - but that was complete nonsense. The constructors later realised what costs they would face when it was too late."
 
But I can still understand the constructors in this case. This IS F1, and limitations in the enginearea would be mockery towards not only the fans, but the sport itself. If they want to reduce costs, an inseason testing ban, or simply forbid aerodynamic upgrades during season would be the best way to go.
 
Team666
But I can still understand the constructors in this case. This IS F1, and limitations in the enginearea would be mockery towards not only the fans, but the sport itself. If they want to reduce costs, an inseason testing ban, or simply forbid aerodynamic upgrades during season would be the best way to go.
Click to expand...
Banning inseason testing would be too difficult to enforce, since teams could do various tests away from the track at their headquarters or at other facilities.

As for aero test bans, it isn't a bad idea in theory, since it would be easy to enforce. But, it wouldn't work out, since the richer teams would just simply devote more time and money to working on the aero package for the next year. Also, if a team discovers an aerodynamic problem that could pose a safety hazard part way through the year (such as excessive lift at top speed), it would force a team to either withdraw or field an unsafe car.

Quite frankly, I agree with Ecclestone (for once). Adding on a limitation to engine revs would definitley help keep power down, which would ultimately reduce speed. I'm not sure if it would keep research costs down though. Research would probably shift more towards making the engines more efficient if a rev limit was implemented.

Reducing costs and keeping the cars from going too fast is not an easy matter. But I think its safe to say moving to a harder tire compound and removing tire changes failed miserably.
 
Why would they run tests with a car that doesn't conform to the rules at that point, a few days before Bahrain GP? Another article on f1live.com states that he was driving a RA106 with the latest specification RA806E engine, and that he set the record while doing tests for Michelin, so perhaps he was on a very soft set of tires... that's still impressive to me.
 
Who said they ran the whole test with an illegal car? It was at the end of the day, from what I could gather, and it was the last test. They probably took all of the ballast out of the car, and ran it on fumes to get a lap record, and some publicity.
 

Latest Posts

Back