2019 Formula 1 Season Thread

[Akrapovic]

A V4 is less compact than an I4 because it requires two exhaust manifolds, 2 headers, 2 blocks etc. Packaging a V4 is a problem. V4s are wider so cannot be mounted in a transverse position too. I4s are mounted sideways. This improved packaging and balance and makes room for larger crash structures. A V4 is also heavier.

V4s fit better in motorcycles because they’re not as tall and the exhausts run out the side. Cars have minimum bonnet (hood) heights which negates the advantage of the lower height of the block.

Honestly, just read some about it. It’s not my opinion. I have no bias for or against V4 vs I4. I literally don’t care. I’m telling you why the very smart engineers choose not to use it. If you think they’re wrong then I’m sure they’ll appreciate an email explaining the engineering work you’ve put into solving the problem.

 

[cube]

A V4 would allow to make small normal rear wheel drive cars.

If it was done before I don't believe it cannot be done again.

 

[CWallace]

If it was done before I don't believe it cannot be done again.

It is not an issue of ability.

it is an issue of will.

No mainstream automobile manufacturer is likely to have the will to do it for economic and practicality reasons.

 

[cube]

It is not an issue of ability.

it is an issue of will.

No mainstream automobile manufacturer is likely to have the will to do it for economic and practicality reasons.

Maybe Mazda, as they go their own way.

 

[bunnspecial]

A V4 would have more torque than a I4 and be more compact.

Source for a V4 having more torque than an otherwise comparable I4?

Also, what do you mean by "more torque"-low RPMs, high RPMs, or across the entire rev range?

 

[cube]

Source for a V4 having more torque than an otherwise comparable I4?

Also, what do you mean by "more torque"-low RPMs, high RPMs, or across the entire rev range?

I think you could make an engine that is more compact but has greater displacement.

 

[Akrapovic]

A V4 would allow to make small normal rear wheel drive cars.

If it was done before I don't believe it cannot be done again.

No. You can do that with I4s anyway. Rear drive means more mechanical parts to the rear, which causes issues with cabin space. Even BMW is making some FWD cars now.

You seem to think everyone is going to make a V4 engine because you want them to. F1 might legislate them in. But it won’t turn them into road car engines.

 

[0388631]

It would be grand to have laser disc or VHS in cars.

 

[Akrapovic]

It’s being talked about like F1 hasn’t run 4 cylinder engines before. The BMW M12 was 4 cylinders and won the championship. It was an I4.

Same engine ran in the GTP class, IMSA and Group A touring cars.

 

[cube]

But F1 likes V. And the point is to engineer something interesting.

I know that BMW is making some forward wheel drive cars. But many people want rear wheel drive. And it would be interesting if you could make something shorter than an MX-5 or an A-Class with the same power.

Mercedes has modular engines, for example.

More EVs means that they have to find more work.

 

[Akrapovic]

But F1 likes V. And the point is to engineer something interesting.

F1 does not like Vs. F1 likes the best engineering solutions. F1 has used a boxer-12 engine, an H16, an Inline 4, V6, V8, V10, V12. Now, F1 isn't engineering something interesting - they're all being forced to engineer the same thing. Look at Le Mans 2014-2016 for something interesting - a mix of engine layouts, aspiration types, displacement and hybrid technologies. Petrol, diesel, 4, 6, 8 and 12 cylinders. Turbo and NA. Battery, super-capacitor and flywheel. That, was interesting engineering.

Secondly, you're talking about road cars. Road cars are absolutely not going for interesting things. They're going for good, efficient solutions. A V4 in a road car increases design and manufacturing complexity, increases servicing costs and inflicts several negative trade-offs on the rest of the vehicle. The increase in torque you're wanting is already achieved by the use of a small turbo charger on most I4 vehicles now. And guess what - adding a turbo to a V4 will either require a very expensive engineering solution (see 919) or two turbo chargers - adding additional expense and servicing, and making packaging harder.

I know that BMW is making some forward wheel drive cars. But many people want rear wheel drive. And it would be interesting if you could make something shorter than an MX-5 or an A-Class with the same power.

You couldn't make it shorter than an MX-5 or A-Class. You may have missed the point I made earlier, where I pointed out that I4s are mounted transversely. That is how they achieve such small bonnets (hoods). Adding the V4, you're rotating the engine round again.

Many people do want rear driver cars. And those exist with I4s rather than V4s, because the I4 is still better in a rear driver car.

If a V4 comes to F1, it's the same reason the current V6s and previous V8s and V10s came. It's because the rules say so. Not because it's the best engineering solution, or something interesting.

This is the last post I'll make on the V4 topic. It's pretty clear you're not interested in the reasons why engineers decide not to use the V4. You want it because you want it, and everything else is just, like, opinions, man.

 

[bunnspecial]

I think you could make an engine that is more compact but has greater displacement.

So, you're grasping at the straws to make your point.

Displacement isn't everything when it comes to torque figures or everything else for the engine.

Aside from that, you can't automatically add displacement and assume that changing the cylinder layout will result in a more compact package. Vs are shorter front to back, but they're also significantly wider. The inline 8 cylinder is dead because it's too unwieldy for most purposes, while the V8 trades length for width and can fit in a wide variety of cars. The inherent balance without the use of balance shafts in a 90º V8 helps. The I6 is short enough to be workable in many car designs and is still liked for how well balanced it is, although the V6 is a workable compromise. V6s aren't necessarily better than I6s, but manufacturers like them as a compromise since they can often make them on the same tooling as a V8(to save money) and it's a whole lot easier to fit one in a transverse package than an I6.

There are few arguments I can think of for a V4 providing any real advantage over an I4 and instead see downsides in the form of the amount of counterbalance that would be needed to keep the engine from destroying itself. If you can provide anything more than a 1-2 sentence answer to substantiate it, I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[cube]

You couldn't make it shorter than an MX-5 or A-Class. You may have missed the point I made earlier, where I pointed out that I4s are

The MX-5 is longitudinal. I thought the A-Class was different than the Golf.

People who buy Mercedes or BMW don't care too much about the cost.

 

[Akrapovic]

People who buy Mercedes or BMW don't care too much about the cost.

Well. You're wrong.

Back on topic. 4 races to go. Pretty close for 3rd in the championship. Some circuits RBR might do well at soon. Can Max snatch it from Leclerc? This is on the assumption that Bottas is allowed to take second easily of course.

 

[cube]

Well. You're wrong.

I said "too much".

 

[cube]

A V4 mini Ferrari would be as cool as a kei sports car.

 

[jdechko]

Renault disqualified from results of the Japanese Grand Prix | Formula 1®

Renault have been disqualified from the results of the Japanese Grand Prix after a protest brought by rivals Racing Point was upheld.

www.formula1.com

Renault have been disqualified from the results of the Japanese Grand Prix after a protest brought by rivals Racing Point was upheld. It means the French marque lose the nine points they scored in Suzuka, where Daniel Ricciardo finished sixth and Nico Hulkenberg tenth.
Racing Point’s protest regarded an alleged breach of the Sporting and Technical Regulations and the FIA International Sporting Code, relating to a ‘pre-set, automated brake bias system’.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Renault disqualified from results of the Japanese Grand Prix | Formula 1®

Renault have been disqualified from the results of the Japanese Grand Prix after a protest brought by rivals Racing Point was upheld.

www.formula1.com

Well it’s not like Renault don’t have a history of cheating is it?
I feel sorry for Daniel. Such a nice guy who deserved a better drive.

 

[robbieduncan]

Well it’s not like Renault don’t have a history of cheating is it?
I feel sorry for Daniel. Such a nice guy who deserved a better drive.

He had a better drive! He gave up on it because he was being treated (in his eyes) less favourably than his team mate. I hope for his sake he’s not the new Alonso leaving good teams for bad/underperforming ones in sequence. Not sure he’s got any choices for next season.

I expect Renault will appeal.

 

[pachyderm]

Renault disqualified from results of the Japanese Grand Prix | Formula 1®

Renault have been disqualified from the results of the Japanese Grand Prix after a protest brought by rivals Racing Point was upheld.

www.formula1.com

hmmp.

1	77	Valtteri Bottas	MERCEDES	52	1:21:46.755	25
2	5	Sebastian Vettel	FERRARI	52	+13.343s	18
3	44	Lewis Hamilton	MERCEDES	52	+13.858s	16
4	23	Alexander Albon	RED BULL RACING HONDA	52	+59.537s	12
5	55	Carlos Sainz	MCLAREN RENAULT	52	+69.101s	10
DQ	3	Daniel Ricciardo	RENAULT	51	+1 lap	0
6	16	Charles Leclerc	FERRARI	51	+1 lap	8
7	10	Pierre Gasly	SCUDERIA TORO ROSSO HONDA	51	+1 lap	6
8	11	Sergio Perez	RACING POINT BWT MERCEDES	51	+1 lap	4
DQ	27	Nico Hulkenberg	RENAULT	51	+1 lap	0
9	18	Lance Stroll	RACING POINT BWT MERCEDES	51	+1 lap	2
10	26	Daniil Kvyat	SCUDERIA TORO ROSSO HONDA	51	+1 lap	1
11	4	Lando Norris	MCLAREN RENAULT	51	+1 lap	0
12	7	Kimi Räikkönen	ALFA ROMEO RACING FERRARI	51	+1 lap	0

 

[nebo1ss]

The race this weekend is going to be interesting. I believe it is all going to be down to tyre strategy. Ferrari has all the speed but have a habit of over thinking it all. I would not be surprised to see an outsider on the podium.

 

[CWallace]

Spoiler

And Bottas stuffs it into the barriers at the final corner to bring out the Yellow Flag, but Lewis and Seb were not going to beat Max's provisional Pole time and LeClerc made a mistake in Sector Three to ruin his final lap.

So Max on pole with the Ferrari's two and three. Pretty sure they can take Max, so with Lewis 4th and Bottas 6th I am liking Ferrari's chances tomorrow.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Spoiler

And Bottas stuffs it into the barriers at the final corner to bring out the Yellow Flag, but Lewis and Seb were not going to beat Max's provisional Pole time and LeClerc made a mistake in Sector Three to ruin his final lap.

So Max on pole with the Ferrari's two and three. Pretty sure they can take Max, so with Lewis 4th and Bottas 6th I am liking Ferrari's chances tomorrow.

Three place grid penalty for Max certainly supports that hypothesis.
Shame.

 

[CWallace]

Three place grid penalty for Max certainly supports that hypothesis. Shame.

Yeah. Max didn't need to improve so why he didn't slow down...

I mean it's a safety violation so I am compelled to support the penalties, but....

 

[Apple fanboy]

Yeah. Max didn't need to improve so why he didn't slow down...

I mean it's a safety violation so I am compelled to support the penalties, but....

If he’d just backed off he’d have been on pole.

So either

• He didn’t see the flag (there was no yellow light on his wheel)
• He didn’t care and thought it didn’t apply to him.
• He could see the crash and figured he’d be able to avoid it without backing off.

None of which are great. Admitting he’d not slowed down didn’t really leave the stewards with any choice.