Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by Noj » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 04:32:31


http://SportToday.org/
sound-enhancers

The silly old ***er believes the sound of the V6 engines will stop the
public visiting F1 races.  Like he gives a shit about spectators at
races.  If he did, it wouldn't cost a small fortune to sit in the
pissing rain and 50 feet from the track at Silverstone.

 
 
 

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by brafiel » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:40:43


Quote:
> http://SportToday.org/
> sound-enhancers

> The silly old ***er believes the sound of the V6 engines will stop the
> public visiting F1 races. ?Like he gives a shit about spectators at
> races. ?If he did, it wouldn't cost a small fortune to sit in the
> pissing rain and 50 feet from the track at Silverstone.

With the confusing stream of engine spec changes zigzagging through F1
over the last 20 years --- My mind is still stuck with the wonderful
and permanent rationale for V-10 engine --- that design was going to
SOLVE everything.  I have barely accepted the little V-8's of more
redent years, which, too, were to be the solution to F1's problem.

Seriously: what did the FIA present this time round as the 'problem'
for which the ***y ***y V-6 engine is to be, yawn, the solution?
And for how many years into the future does the FIA confidently
predict the ***y ***y V-6 engines will prevail, keeping everyone
happy?

 
 
 

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by News » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:44:28


Quote:

>> http://SportToday.org/
>> sound-enhancers

>> The silly old ***er believes the sound of the V6 engines will stop the
>> public visiting F1 races.  Like he gives a shit about spectators at
>> races.  If he did, it wouldn't cost a small fortune to sit in the
>> pissing rain and 50 feet from the track at Silverstone.

> With the confusing stream of engine spec changes zigzagging through F1
> over the last 20 years --- My mind is still stuck with the wonderful
> and permanent rationale for V-10 engine --- that design was going to
> SOLVE everything.  I have barely accepted the little V-8's of more
> redent years, which, too, were to be the solution to F1's problem.

> Seriously: what did the FIA present this time round as the 'problem'
> for which the ***y ***y V-6 engine is to be, yawn, the solution?
> And for how many years into the future does the FIA confidently
> predict the ***y ***y V-6 engines will prevail, keeping everyone
> happy?

For as long as electronic noise-makers placate the crowds...

 
 
 

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by awa.. » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:39:22


Quote:
>Seriously: what did the FIA present this time round as the 'problem'
>for which the ***y ***y V-6 engine is to be, yawn, the solution?
>And for how many years into the future does the FIA confidently
>predict the ***y ***y V-6 engines will prevail, keeping everyone
>happy?

cost and relevance to engine manufacturers who dont really learn anything from
building V10s or V8s for F1,except for building *** 1 off engines, in the
cars they normally sell, 1.6 V6s are more relevant, as is hybrid tech. its
designed to encourage more manufacturers to join the sport and supply
engines

LMPs have been running hybrids, diesels (which make hardly any noise at
all), Audis etron thing in the pitlane is a great system and there will be
more spectators at Le Mans than there will be at any F1 race this year for
sure

whether it lasts who knows depends where the manufacturers go next.

 
 
 

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by AC » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 07:59:57

Quote:


>> http://SportToday.org/
>> sound-enhancers

>> The silly old ***er believes the sound of the V6 engines will stop the
>> public visiting F1 races.  Like he gives a shit about spectators at
>> races.  If he did, it wouldn't cost a small fortune to sit in the
>> pissing rain and 50 feet from the track at Silverstone.

> With the confusing stream of engine spec changes zigzagging through F1
> over the last 20 years --- My mind is still stuck with the wonderful
> and permanent rationale for V-10 engine --- that design was going to
> SOLVE everything.  I have barely accepted the little V-8's of more
> redent years, which, too, were to be the solution to F1's problem.

> Seriously: what did the FIA present this time round as the 'problem'
> for which the ***y ***y V-6 engine is to be, yawn, the solution?
> And for how many years into the future does the FIA confidently
> predict the ***y ***y V-6 engines will prevail, keeping everyone
> happy?

Relevance of the sport to those who pay for it.
Relevance of the sport to the rest of the planet.

Do you really need to ask such a stupid question? You know why the FIA
want these engines. Its been discussed and written about so much, it can
not have passed an F1 fan by.

The arguments against was so sad and weak. The noise? Really? People
really need to hear them selves saying that.

THen to suggest that a new proposal was ever intended to solve
"everything" is just desperate exaggeration in the face of no real
argument or point to make.

No one, and I mean no one complained about the 1.5L Turbo engines of the
past, why suddenly now?

Current engines are old hat. Useless to any one but F1, and a the very
few who can afford supercars. But even those guys are going for smaller,
greener, intelligent engines.

Face it, you are old and don't like change. Probably one of those who
gets all up set about people who want to make the planet a better place
too. Well, if that is enough to put people off F1, then Im fine with
that. They can go do something else.

--
AC

 
 
 

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by AC » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:09:56

Quote:


>> Seriously: what did the FIA present this time round as the 'problem'
>> for which the ***y ***y V-6 engine is to be, yawn, the solution?
>> And for how many years into the future does the FIA confidently
>> predict the ***y ***y V-6 engines will prevail, keeping everyone
>> happy?

> cost and relevance to engine manufacturers who dont really learn anything from
> building V10s or V8s for F1,except for building *** 1 off engines, in the
> cars they normally sell, 1.6 V6s are more relevant, as is hybrid tech. its
> designed to encourage more manufacturers to join the sport and supply
> engines

> LMPs have been running hybrids, diesels (which make hardly any noise at
> all), Audis etron thing in the pitlane is a great system and there will be
> more spectators at Le Mans than there will be at any F1 race this year for
> sure

> whether it lasts who knows depends where the manufacturers go next.

I dont follow sports-car racing, but aren't they more open to new ideas
or what ever, in general?

If so, I was wondering if part of the FIA thinking is making F1 more
like the sports-car in innovation terms, and perhaps enticing
manufacturers away from sport-car racing?

--
AC

 
 
 

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by brafiel » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 09:02:16


Quote:

> Current engines are old hat. Useless to any one but F1, and a the very
> few who can afford supercars. But even those guys are going for smaller,
> greener, intelligent engines.

> Face it, you are old and don't like change.

Awa--- and AC:

I must agree with your AC's second point ;-)

But claims of engineering "relevance" have never persuaded me.  I
didn't see any 2.4 litre V-8s filling the high street.  For that
matter 50 years ago the lovely 1.5 V-8 Climax was not 'relevant' to
anything.

With current cylinder and head architecture, and crankshaft throws not
much greater than a camshaft, I don't contemplate manufacturers
learning anything as a result of building an F1 engine.  Nor do I
contemplate that the new V-6's will cost a penny less than this year's
engines.   Would manufacturers possibly find "relevance" in a 1.4
litre aspirated straight-4 motor?

But this is an argument that cannot be won.  I am a dinoaur, and
cannot feel e***ment every time they bring out a new engine spec.
The only time I have thought "Aha, this will be good" was 47 years ago
when the 3-litre formula came in, with 1.5 turbos.  We had EIGH***
different engines competing, of which 13 were the full 3 litres [see
Wiki].   Loved it all, but didn't think it was 'relevant.'

 
 
 

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by Bobste » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:55:09


<group>
Quote:
> THen to suggest that a new proposal was ever intended to solve
> "everything" is just desperate exaggeration in the face of no real
> argument or point to make.

> No one, and I mean no one complained about the 1.5L Turbo engines of the
> past, why suddenly now?

Exactly.

I think Bernie's been seduced by gormless celebrity guests who come to
the races, ponce around in the pit lane, eat caviar with Ron Dennis or
Christian Horner or whoever, don't have a clue about what's going on
and when asked say "the noise, maaaaaaaan. The noise was so cool."

 
 
 

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by Bobste » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 15:04:57


Quote:


> >> Seriously: what did the FIA present this time round as the 'problem'
> >> for which the ***y ***y V-6 engine is to be, yawn, the solution?
> >> And for how many years into the future does the FIA confidently
> >> predict the ***y ***y V-6 engines will prevail, keeping everyone
> >> happy?

> > cost and relevance to engine manufacturers who dont really learn anything from
> > building V10s or V8s for F1,except for building *** 1 off engines, in the
> > cars they normally sell, 1.6 V6s are more relevant, as is hybrid tech. its
> > designed to encourage more manufacturers to join the sport and supply
> > engines

> > LMPs have been running hybrids, diesels (which make hardly any noise at
> > all), Audis etron thing in the pitlane is a great system and there will be
> > more spectators at Le Mans than there will be at any F1 race this year for
> > sure

> > whether it lasts who knows depends where the manufacturers go next.

> I dont follow sports-car racing, but aren't they more open to new ideas
> or what ever, in general?

Yes. They have hybrids already, and diesels. I can't remember which
team, but one team was doing quite well with the Williams fly-wheel
KERS.

Quote:

> If so, I was wondering if part of the FIA thinking is making F1 more
> like the sports-car in innovation terms, and perhaps enticing
> manufacturers away from sport-car racing?

Hmmm... different ball game. As Peugeot found out. They were cleaning
up at Le Mans and then decided to go to F1 (with McLaren). They found
out it was a very different proposition - and not just in monetary
terms. Oddly, they'd done well in endurance racing but their F1
engines were hand grenades. So the performance aspect, I think, is
quite different.

In Le Mans the manufacturer teams such as Audi typically do it all
themselves. In F1 they'd either have to buy an existing team, bid for
a new slot or put their engine in somebody else's car.

I do think that FIA want to have a common engine architecture, so that
a manufacturer could be in Le Mans and in F1 - though the engines
would not be identical.

 
 
 

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by AC » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 19:26:36

Quote:


>> Current engines are old hat. Useless to any one but F1, and a the very
>> few who can afford supercars. But even those guys are going for smaller,
>> greener, intelligent engines.

>> Face it, you are old and don't like change.

> Awa--- and AC:

> I must agree with your AC's second point ;-)

> But claims of engineering "relevance" have never persuaded me.  I
> didn't see any 2.4 litre V-8s filling the high street.  For that
> matter 50 years ago the lovely 1.5 V-8 Climax was not 'relevant' to
> anything.

No, and F1 was not as expensive as it is now.

Quote:

> With current cylinder and head architecture, and crankshaft throws not
> much greater than a camshaft, I don't contemplate manufacturers
> learning anything as a result of building an F1 engine.  Nor do I
> contemplate that the new V-6's will cost a penny less than this year's
> engines.   Would manufacturers possibly find "relevance" in a 1.4
> litre aspirated straight-4 motor?

Marketing? Imagine that Golf GTI being marketed with an F1 derived
engine. Imagine Jeremy Clarkson getting all e***d about it.

Cost wise, they will be cheaper over time. That how business works. Its
spreads costs.

1.4? Yes.

Crank Cam? That just reads like a silly excuse.

Quote:

> But this is an argument that cannot be won.

Oh yes it can. We wont get V6 Turbo vs V8, sadly.

Quote:
> I am a dinoaur, and
> cannot feel e***ment every time they bring out a new engine spec.

Shame. I do.

Quote:
> The only time I have thought "Aha, this will be good" was 47 years ago
> when the 3-litre formula came in, with 1.5 turbos.  We had EIGH***
> different engines competing, of which 13 were the full 3 litres [see
> Wiki].   Loved it all, but didn't think it was 'relevant.'

Yep a mix would be fantastic if they managed to regulate fairness.

Why do you have such a problem with the word "relevant"? Have you seen
the world out there? It needs to be relevant, or people will make
another choice. Fans, sponsors and manufacturers.

--
AC

 
 
 

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by AC » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 19:33:04

Quote:




>>>> Seriously: what did the FIA present this time round as the 'problem'
>>>> for which the ***y ***y V-6 engine is to be, yawn, the solution?
>>>> And for how many years into the future does the FIA confidently
>>>> predict the ***y ***y V-6 engines will prevail, keeping everyone
>>>> happy?

>>> cost and relevance to engine manufacturers who dont really learn anything from
>>> building V10s or V8s for F1,except for building *** 1 off engines, in the
>>> cars they normally sell, 1.6 V6s are more relevant, as is hybrid tech. its
>>> designed to encourage more manufacturers to join the sport and supply
>>> engines

>>> LMPs have been running hybrids, diesels (which make hardly any noise at
>>> all), Audis etron thing in the pitlane is a great system and there will be
>>> more spectators at Le Mans than there will be at any F1 race this year for
>>> sure

>>> whether it lasts who knows depends where the manufacturers go next.

>> I dont follow sports-car racing, but aren't they more open to new ideas
>> or what ever, in general?

> Yes. They have hybrids already, and diesels. I can't remember which
> team, but one team was doing quite well with the Williams fly-wheel
> KERS.

Ah, I remember something about that too. Wasn't it a Porsche using
Williams tech?

Quote:

>> If so, I was wondering if part of the FIA thinking is making F1 more
>> like the sports-car in innovation terms, and perhaps enticing
>> manufacturers away from sport-car racing?

> Hmmm... different ball game. As Peugeot found out. They were cleaning
> up at Le Mans and then decided to go to F1 (with McLaren). They found
> out it was a very different proposition - and not just in monetary
> terms. Oddly, they'd done well in endurance racing but their F1
> engines were hand grenades. So the performance aspect, I think, is
> quite different.

True, but that's Peugeot, not reason to think others would fail.
Especially if the engine are more like what they have now.

Quote:

> In Le Mans the manufacturer teams such as Audi typically do it all
> themselves. In F1 they'd either have to buy an existing team, bid for
> a new slot or put their engine in somebody else's car.

True enough. But I don't see a road block there.

Quote:

> I do think that FIA want to have a common engine architecture, so that
> a manufacturer could be in Le Mans and in F1 - though the engines
> would not be identical.

Oh yeah. Heard that ideas before. Didn't they want something that tied
up rally and touring cars as well? Dunno how I feel about that. It makes
a lot of sense, relies on fans not caring that much about engines, but
some how feels wrong to even me.

--
AC

 
 
 

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by Bobste » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 19:39:44


<SNIP>

Quote:
> Oh yeah. Heard that ideas before. Didn't they want something that tied
> up rally and touring cars as well? Dunno how I feel about that. It makes
> a lot of sense, relies on fans not caring that much about engines, but
> some how feels wrong to even me.

I started paying serious attention to motor sports about 1973. Back
then Ferrari and Matra were in sports cars and used motors similar to
the F1 units. Sports cars and F1 were both 3 liter formulas then. I
didn't find it bothersome. The engines were in a different state of
tune, and you had to build a very different car - so there was nothing
jarring. I don't know if FISA had intent to promote a single engine
platform (F2 was 2 liters, as was the next class down in sports cars)
but the regulations made that possible.

Some engines popped up in multiple places, some didn't. There was
"Ford" engine in sports cars, for example, but it wasn't the Cosworth
V8 ("Weslake" IIRC). Porsche had a 3 liter engine for sports cars but
it never went into F1. BRM were in F1, but their engine was not, as I
recall, in sports cars.

 
 
 

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by Bobste » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 19:42:44


<snip>

Quote:
> > I do think that FIA want to have a common engine architecture, so that
> > a manufacturer could be in Le Mans and in F1 - though the engines
> > would not be identical.

> Oh yeah. Heard that ideas before. Didn't they want something that tied
> up rally and touring cars as well? Dunno how I feel about that. It makes
> a lot of sense, relies on fans not caring that much about engines, but
> some how feels wrong to even me.

Well, it makes financial sense to manufacturers. And you do want to
get lots of them involved and keen and on-side. F1 is in shit if Merc
or Renault decide that thanks very much, our marketing campaign was
very successful/did us not good at all and we're moving onto our next
big thing now.
 
 
 

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by Bobste » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 19:46:15


Quote:

> I started paying serious attention to motor sports about 1973. Back
> then Ferrari and Matra were in sports cars and used motors similar to
> the F1 units. Sports cars and F1 were both 3 liter formulas then. I
> didn't find it bothersome. The engines were in a different state of
> tune, and you had to build a very different car - so there was nothing
> jarring. I don't know if FISA had intent to promote a single engine
> platform (F2 was 2 liters, as was the next class down in sports cars)
> but the regulations made that possible.

> Some engines popped up in multiple places, some didn't. There was
> "Ford" engine in sports cars, for example, but it wasn't the Cosworth
> V8 ("Weslake" IIRC). Porsche had a 3 liter engine for sports cars but
> it never went into F1. BRM were in F1, but their engine was not, as I
> recall, in sports cars.

A lot of drivers did double duty as well. Ickx for example. Lauda
drove a 2 liter sports car (March with BMW engine). A lot of them had
an extra gig in those days - Stewart drove a Ford Capri in a European
touring car series.

Sure, it was a different time with different incomes and a different
ethos, but the crossing over was not off-putting.