planetf1.com

I think that's a bit of a loaded poll, tbh. Think you should at least have an option for fast yet affordable. Many people object to the hybrids on cost and complexity grounds, not performance

I'm going to vote Current V6 because that's the closest to what I'd want, I quite like the proposed rules for 2021 without the MGU-H but it's not for any noise concerns or longing for V8.

It's just the expense and effectively ruling out any new engine builder coming in, big or small which I don't like about it.

Zoue wrote:I think that's a bit of a loaded poll, tbh. Think you should at least have an option for fast yet affordable. Many people object to the hybrids on cost and complexity grounds, not performance

Added that option, but it deleted the two votes already cast.

It's not intended to be loaded, the chief argument on the thread was between noise and performance. Personally,
the cost option could be negated by the FIA imposing a maximum engine cost that the manufacturers are allowed to sell them for, so it's more a political question than an engine question - but i have still added it as you requested it.

I actually think what suits the factory teams is important.

It might not be romantic but F1 is somewhat defined by big engine manufacturers willing to compete rather than just treat teams as customers. If you bring in an engine formula that fundamentally doesn't suit their reasons for doing this then I think you would risk hugely damaging the sport in the longer term.

As for the poll as it is, I wouldn't go for the "whichever..." options because they aren't clearly defined, and I do prefer the current V6s to the previous V8s.

To me, its about going as fast as you can over a race distance. I don't care about noise.

I'm happy with the current engines. They've probably not been introduces with the rules that I'd like and I'm sad that Ferrari (with mercs backing) vetoed the price cap as I think that might have been of benefit to the smaller teams.

Herb wrote:To me, its about going as fast as you can over a race distance. I don't care about noise.

I'm happy with the current engines. They've probably not been introduces with the rules that I'd like and I'm sad that Ferrari (with mercs backing) vetoed the price cap as I think that might have been of benefit to the smaller teams.

My thoughts exactly. Performance should take precedence in my view and that means the current engine concept wins. I don't think that racing around with engine technology that the top automotive companies left behind in the 20th century is the right direction for the sport's future. Sure it may appeal to some people who grew up with it, but I believe it'll hold limited appeal to the next generation of F1 fans who will have grown up in an era of hybrid and electric road cars. It'll just look unfamiliar and dated.

Current engines.

I wish F1 would stop tooling about with the regulations. The proposed regulations are a joke.

To be honest I'd go for a maximum fuel limit and bring in restrictions on how much they can charge customer teams, alongside provisions they must supply customers. Out side of this let them do what they like....

Those who say the new engines are not true F1 should have a think about whether they'd have tried hybrid power in the "real F1" period if the technology was there for them to try it...

F1 is a racing series, yes the engines sound nice but people also used to go to races to watch the crashes and be disappointed if drivers walked away from crashes. Time for us to take the safety away as this isn't "real F1" anymore

Whatever is the most powerful and fastest. This is Formula One!

I don't really care for the noise but I was lucky to be at a race in 2002 with V10's and your body would shake as they came through. On the flip side, I was just at Austin this year and I was comfortably in my seat, didn't need earplugs, could carry on a conversation easily. The feeling is totally different. When your body is vibrating, and you witness an overtake and everyone's cheering as it all takes place. It's quite the experience.

wolfticket wrote:I actually think what suits the factory teams is important.

It might not be romantic but F1 is somewhat defined by big engine manufacturers willing to compete rather than just treat teams as customers. If you bring in an engine formula that fundamentally doesn't suit their reasons for doing this then I think you would risk hugely damaging the sport in the longer term.

As for the poll as it is, I wouldn't go for the "whichever..." options because they aren't clearly defined, and I do prefer the current V6s to the previous V8s.

I disagree. Only recently (since the V-10's became popular) did the engine manufacturers have a say in what should be run in Formula One. Before then, any engine was there on merit, be it efficiency, packaging, or power. Any manufacturer could give it a go, and those were the golden days of Formula One.

Like any major sports franchise, Formula One is built on the fans. It does not exist for the benefit of any manufacturer. They can come, they can leave, and the history of Formula One is one of constant turnover. Just like your hand in a bucket of water, you remove it and the water takes your place. In 2000 Formula One had this many engine types: Mercedes, Ferrari, Mugen-Honda, Cosworth, BMW, Playlife (Renault), Peugeot, Petronas, Supertech, Fondmetal, and Honda.

Now we are down to just four engine types, and catering to those four just makes the sport more closed to any outsiders wishing to join in the fun. And with any major sport franchise, the moment you stagnate, you are moving backwards. Back in 2000 engine manufacturers were trying to get into Formula One. Now, they can't get anyone else to join.

Lets be real, we are not going back to anything older. No V8, no V10, no V12s. That time and era has passed.
I would be fine with elimination of MGU-H as proposed by the 2021 regulations, but I am completely against standardising any engine component as those same regulations suggest. That is a big no in F1.
No standard chassis and no standard engine components for F1.....EVER!

I will be fine if tomorrow they decide that F1 cars will run standard front or rear wing that does not create too much turbulence and all cars have to run it. But that is as much standardisation as I will tolerate beyond tyres. Engine and chassis has to be unique to the teams or manufacturers.

Someone already did a similar poll a couple of years ago and it's clear that Planet F1 members are big fans of the hybrids. Well I am not.
I would like to see something different. Something loud, something normally aspirated with some kind of recovery system and ultimately cheaper than what we are running now. It will never happen of course, but a man can have a wish.

I voted for whatever is affordable, but clearly it has to be fast, too. I'm still of the opinion that a good twin turbo will propel these cars just as quickly as the hybrids do, but at a fraction of the price. I'm all for tech, but not when it closes the door to (new) competition. I've nothing against the hybrids in terms of performance, but I do feel they've been the biggest single deterrent to new entrants since their introduction.

Poll doesn't really do it for me. Everyone wants the dream land of power, noise & every manufacturer queuing up to take part but its not going to happen.

There is a trade off, much of which we are not privvy to, to get the combination of power, noise & manufacturer backing all in place.

My vote went to the non factory option although all these options have their down sides.

I've despised these engines from the day they were introduced. Expensive, unreliable, complex and un-inspiring, all they've done is widen the gap between the have's and have nots and created a two-tiered system with manufacturer and factory backed teams on one level, and the others left to fight over the scraps.

Since the intro of these units, only 5 cars (2 mercs, 2 RB's, 1 Ferrari) have won races. 5 cars have shared 77 wins in the last 4 seasons thanks to these engines and the restrictive regulations that came along with them. In the 4 seasons leading up to 2014 we had 2 Maccas, 2 RB's, 2 Mercs, 1 Ferrari, 1 Williams, 1 Lotus win races. 9 cars in 78 races.

We have a system where it's impossible for the likes of great teams like McLaren and Williams to even contemplate competing for victories on merit let alone think about championships. We have a situation where Merc, Ferrari and RB have held this great sport for ransom for their own good. We have a situation where the only new engine manufacturer to enter the sport is a laughing stock due to the complexative of the units and the restrictions on development. Not to mention the ludicrous grid penalties being handed out left, right and centre due to reliability issues.

I just want to see an engine, and accompanying regulations, that give each team the opportunity to be able to compete for wins and championships. I want to see rules that allow Sauber, Force India, Williams etc to go out, do their own deals on an affordable engine capable of being competitive instead of being the whipping boys for the manufacturer teams.

And yeah, a screaming, fire breathing dragon in the back of those cars would be good too.

Ennis wrote:Poll doesn't really do it for me. Everyone wants the dream land of power, noise & every manufacturer queuing up to take part but its not going to happen.

There is a trade off, much of which we are not privvy to, to get the combination of power, noise & manufacturer backing all in place.

The point of the poll is to determine which element is most important to the fans - not necessarily which is most feasible politically or economically.

If a fan was completely happy with the V8s, or completely happy with the V6 Hybrids, then they can select those options. If they would prefer something else then they can select which area is most important to them, power, noise or cost.

The poll isn't to say which option you would select if you were president of the FIA, just which thing is most important to you.

We have another thread where people are saying "Noise is the most important thing to F1 fans" - "No, power is the most important thing to F1 fans" - "No, affordability is the most important thing to F1 fans" - all unsubstantiated. This thread is to try and get an idea of where the reality is on that debate.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Ennis wrote:Poll doesn't really do it for me. Everyone wants the dream land of power, noise & every manufacturer queuing up to take part but its not going to happen.

There is a trade off, much of which we are not privvy to, to get the combination of power, noise & manufacturer backing all in place.

The point of the poll is to determine which element is most important to the fans - not necessarily which is most feasible politically or economically.

If a fan was completely happy with the V8s, or completely happy with the V6 Hybrids, then they can select those options. If they would prefer something else then they can select which area is most important to them, power, noise or cost.

The poll isn't to say which option you would select if you were president of the FIA, just which thing is most important to you.

We have another thread where people are saying "Noise is the most important thing to F1 fans" - "No, power is the most important thing to F1 fans" - "No, affordability is the most important thing to F1 fans" - all unsubstantiated. This thread is to try and get an idea of where the reality is on that debate.

I don't think you can introduce affordability as an option without broadening the debate. Nobody cares about the actual cash, they care about the knock-on impacts of cost (limited manufacturers, etc). As soon as you start discussing affordability, you can't then not discuss manufacturer backing.

Secondly, the reality is people want it all & everyone would be willing to trade of some for another. Even the most ardent noise backer would take a slight drop in noise for much more power for example, and most people are most likely not 'extremists' in this in any way. As a fan, give me noise, power & manufacturers. And then because its impossible to be optimal in all of those I'm going to need to make trade-offs along the way to get the balance across those which works best.

Nobody wants noise at all costs, nobody wants power at all costs, nobody wants affordability at all costs.

Ennis wrote:Nobody wants noise at all costs, nobody wants power at all costs, nobody wants affordability at all costs.

Well if you want to read the poll 100% literally. The poll is to determine which of those criteria a particular fan feels is most important.

It's not suggesting the choice is between:

• Silent,100 million dollar, 10,000bhp engines.
• 300db, 100 million dollar, 10bhp engines.
• Silent, $100 , 10bhp engines

More like

• 100db, 5 million dollar, 1250bhp engines.
• 150db, 4 million dollar,700bhp engines.
• 120db, 1 million dollar, 650bhp engines.

V10s? V12s?

Anyway I went for "Whichever are most affordable for the non-factory teams". Keeping the independent guys afloat is more important than cylinders, noise, "going green", etc.

No option for using the best race engine which is reliable and also reasonably cheap to make. The key thing is RACE engine. Not most complex, not most road relevant, not noisiest, not most efficient. As part of making F1 the best racing with the best drivers, it should have the best RACE engine.

babararacucudada wrote:No option for using the best race engine which is reliable and also reasonably cheap to make. The key thing is RACE engine. Not most complex, not most road relevant, not noisiest, not most efficient. As part of making F1 the best racing with the best drivers, it should have the best RACE engine.

I won't edit the text of the poll as it will reset the votes cast (annoyingly) but affordability for factory teams would include reliability and cost, as an engine that goes bang all the time will cost them in terms of replacement engines and WCC points.

Without getting into a complex discussion of torque and power curves and engine driveability,the engine doesn't really affect the racing too much. Aero, tyres and brakes are all far more important when it comes to that.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:No option for using the best race engine which is reliable and also reasonably cheap to make. The key thing is RACE engine. Not most complex, not most road relevant, not noisiest, not most efficient. As part of making F1 the best racing with the best drivers, it should have the best RACE engine.

I won't edit the text of the poll as it will reset the votes cast (annoyingly) but affordability for factory teams would include reliability and cost, as an engine that goes bang all the time will cost them in terms of replacement engines and WCC points.

Without getting into a complex discussion of torque and power curves and engine driveability,the engine doesn't really affect the racing too much. Aero, tyres and brakes are all far more important when it comes to that.

BIB
I was under the impression that the Mercedes engine was a major factor in their success over the last 4 years.

The cars have put on 100kg in the Hybrid era. Things like that affect the braking and cornering.

Yes - aerodynamics and tyres can be major factors too if the rules are not written correctly, so they need to improve those areas too, but in terms of the engine, it's not negligible in terms of improving the racing. All the engine penalties are also not helping the racing.

babararacucudada wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:No option for using the best race engine which is reliable and also reasonably cheap to make. The key thing is RACE engine. Not most complex, not most road relevant, not noisiest, not most efficient. As part of making F1 the best racing with the best drivers, it should have the best RACE engine.

I won't edit the text of the poll as it will reset the votes cast (annoyingly) but affordability for factory teams would include reliability and cost, as an engine that goes bang all the time will cost them in terms of replacement engines and WCC points.

Without getting into a complex discussion of torque and power curves and engine driveability,the engine doesn't really affect the racing too much. Aero, tyres and brakes are all far more important when it comes to that.

BIB
I was under the impression that the Mercedes engine was a major factor in their success over the last 4 years.

The cars have put on 100kg in the Hybrid era. Things like that affect the braking and cornering.

Yes - aerodynamics and tyres can be major factors too if the rules are not written correctly, so they need to improve those areas too, but in terms of the engine, it's not negligible in terms of improving the racing. All the engine penalties are also not helping the racing.

What I mean is that the type of engine doesn't affect the racing. Mercedes were dominant because their engine was so much better than the other engines, and as a manufacturer team as well their engine and chassis were tailored for each other.

The Merc customer teams had the best engine but had to fit it into their chassis concept so had less speed on this front.

Ferrari and Red Bull (who were the Renault factory team at the time) has engines that were both much worse (in 2014 the Ferrari was the worst engine by some margin as they compromised power to allow for tighter packaging)

These problems can happen to any engine formula. If the Ferrari and Renault engines were on parity with Mercedes, then it would be a battle of the chassis, which is what we have seen for most of this year.

In contrast, if you gave teams the best aero - this would affect the racing as they'd find it very difficult to follow each other as well - so that's what I mean by the engines not having a particular affect on the racing,when all things are equal.

Mercedes having domination in 2014-2016 was a consequence of Renault not having a full on works team and Ferrari screwing up their engine concept and having to play catch up through the next three years. (Oh,and Honda entering one year later, with less R&D time, and also trying a really experimental turbine design which they have since abandoned so are more than 2 years behind the rest)

Zoue wrote:I think that's a bit of a loaded poll, tbh. Think you should at least have an option for fast yet affordable. Many people object to the hybrids on cost and complexity grounds, not performance

Agreed but it's a poll that paints real fans into a corner buy not listing the most desirable engine for the majority of fans which is a V10.

Of all the engines listed however, I'd Opt for the V8 because it is an excellent engine that sounds great, is reliable, and the rev limit can be raised a few thousand RPM which would improve both sound and performance. It was also much less expensive than the current money drain that is the current v6 Hybrid.

As such I cannot cast a vote because what I "want" isn't listed.

Can you please create a legitimate dinosaur option?

It was there but Alonso ate it, sorry.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Zoue wrote:I think that's a bit of a loaded poll, tbh. Think you should at least have an option for fast yet affordable. Many people object to the hybrids on cost and complexity grounds, not performance

Agreed but it's a poll that paints real fans into a corner buy not listing the most desirable engine for the majority of fans which is a V10.

Of all the engines listed however, I'd Opt for the V8 because it is an excellent engine that sounds great, is reliable, and the rev limit can be raised a few thousand RPM which would improve both sound and performance. It was also much less expensive than the current money drain that is the current v6 Hybrid.

As such I cannot cast a vote because what I "want" isn't listed.

And here comes the "No true Scotsman" argument again.

I'm a real fan but don't think the most desirable option is a naturally aspirated V-10, or really any V-10.

It's this type of argument in the other thread that caused this poll to be created. I agree that the pole is limited in the number of choices but you're free to offer up your preference, as you have. The problem is that you offer it as what "real race fans" want instead as your own opinion. That some agree with that opinion doesn't mean that those who don't aren't "real race fans."

sandman1347 wrote:Can you please create a legitimate dinosaur option?

I can't add any new options without resetting the poll.

It's largely irrelevant, as F1 isn't going to go back two generations of technology - only the V8s have ever been suggested, and that was only during 2014/2015 when Horner was moaning about the Renault engines.

The new engines that have been suggested are halfway between the current formula and the last one, so the V8s and present day hybrids represent the ends of the spectrum.

The V-10's were definitely loud and exciting. They were there because the regulations allowed any configuration at that time, and due to how the rules were structured, just like Goldilocks, the V-8 wasn't enough, the V-12 was too much, but the V-10 was just right. Within that same time frame, innovations in valve train technology gave us the pneumatic valve that allowed engines to rev higher. So we associated high revs and loud sounds with the V-10's. But transplant that same technology into a V-8 or V-12 and you would have a package just as loud and exciting.

IMO a decent Formula One engine could be constructed a heck of a lot cheaper, Indycar have it down to approximately a million per customer, for the entire season. The limitations on cost are not the actual engine layout. So I do not associate cost with architecture. Driving down costs is not a technical issue but rather a matter of political will.

I also hold firmly to the belief that racing is socially and environmentally irresponsible. I do not pretend that a sport so loud, that consumes money, resources, and people is politically correct from any perspective. I also understand that for every innovation that comes out of Formula One, a hundred come out of the labs of the manufacturers. Maybe in the past racing technology gave us (for example the rear view mirror) applications transferable to road cars. But the real truth is that today's Formula One does not pioneer innovation, it just adapts it from other fields.

What would I like? As long as the engines were a lot louder, cheaper, more reliable, and development allowed, then any architecture should be allowed.

The manufacturers have too much say in the future of the sport. It is understandable they want the optics to appear that the sport is driving innovation and leading the way to a greener future. But the reality is they are there for the publicity, and that alone.

The sport is for the fans, and as a fan, I want to be excited and enjoy many memorable moments. When the race begins, I want the hairs on my arms to stand up and feel the adrenaline rushing through my body. I want to stimulate my senses, I want something truly exciting in every way.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:The V-10's were definitely loud and exciting. They were there because the regulations allowed any configuration at that time, and due to how the rules were structured, just like Goldilocks, the V-8 wasn't enough, the V-12 was too much, but the V-10 was just right. Within that same time frame, innovations in valve train technology gave us the pneumatic valve that allowed engines to rev higher. So we associated high revs and loud sounds with the V-10's. But transplant that same technology into a V-8 or V-12 and you would have a package just as loud and exciting.

IMO a decent Formula One engine could be constructed a heck of a lot cheaper, Indycar have it down to approximately a million per customer, for the entire season. The limitations on cost are not the actual engine layout. So I do not associate cost with architecture. Driving down costs is not a technical issue but rather a matter of political will.

I also hold firmly to the belief that racing is socially and environmentally irresponsible. I do not pretend that a sport so loud, that consumes money, resources, and people is politically correct from any perspective. I also understand that for every innovation that comes out of Formula One, a hundred come out of the labs of the manufacturers. Maybe in the past racing technology gave us (for example the rear view mirror) applications transferable to road cars. But the real truth is that today's Formula One does not pioneer innovation, it just adapts it from other fields.

What would I like? As long as the engines were a lot louder, cheaper, more reliable, and development allowed, then any architecture should be allowed.

The manufacturers have too much say in the future of the sport. It is understandable they want the optics to appear that the sport is driving innovation and leading the way to a greener future. But the reality is they are there for the publicity, and that alone.

The sport is for the fans, and as a fan, I want to be excited and enjoy many memorable moments. When the race begins, I want the hairs on my arms to stand up and feel the adrenaline rushing through my body. I want to stimulate my senses, I want something truly exciting in every way.

That's somewhat similar to what I want.

If (as planned) internal combustion engines are going to be absent from new road cars in 2040, what is the point of spending a lot of money promoting them in F1? If the future is electric cars that drive themselves, why not try to make F1 as good as it can be in what years it has left?

The current engines are not a success for F1. They may be a success for Mercedes.

The cars are now a lot heavier and the engines are very expensive. Only one team or occasionally a few have been capable of winning races and mostly the World Championships have been limited to one team. Lots of engine penalties have ruined the grid line-ups. Ask Alonso if the engine has been good for F1.

An engine that allows many teams to compete and many drivers to be able to compete is worth having. In recent years, if we had Vettel, Verstappen, Alonso, Ricciardo, Hulkenberg, Sainz, Perez, Ocon - all in competitive machinery, we would have fixed part of F1. Engines have been part of the problem and getting the engine right is part of the cure.

My argument is that to make F1 the best it can be the preferable engine is the best RACE engine for the job, and that should be the aim. That includes it being reliable enough and affordable enough.

There are many other things that need fixing in F1 of course, and if they are not fixed, the engine alone can't make the racing good.

babararacucudada wrote:There are many other things that need fixing in F1 of course, and if they are not fixed, the engine alone can't make the racing good.

I fully agree. The current engine dilemma is a symptom, not the actual disease.

The engines are hidden under bodywork, all we perceive as fans is the noise and the results the engine produce. IMO as long as any engine produces the desired power, reliability and efficiency the designers targeted, it doesn't matter. It could be a 7 liter aluminum OHV big block, or a 1 liter 3 cylinder turbo, as long as they contribute to good racing.

Formula One promotes itself as the best of the best. But they definitely do not have the best sounds. IMO the best sounding car in racing is the WEC/IMSA Porsche 911 RSR.

Blinky McSquinty wrote: As long as the engines were a lot louder, cheaper, more reliable, and development allowed, then any architecture should be allowed.

The manufacturers have too much say in the future of the sport. It is understandable they want the optics to appear that the sport is driving innovation and leading the way to a greener future. But the reality is they are there for the publicity, and that alone.

The sport is for the fans, and as a fan, I want to be excited and enjoy many memorable moments. When the race begins, I want the hairs on my arms to stand up and feel the adrenaline rushing through my body. I want to stimulate my senses, I want something truly exciting in every way.

Yes. Yes. And yes again. 1000% agree! You could NOT be more correct.

RaggedMan wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Zoue wrote:I think that's a bit of a loaded poll, tbh. Think you should at least have an option for fast yet affordable. Many people object to the hybrids on cost and complexity grounds, not performance

Agreed but it's a poll that paints real fans into a corner buy not listing the most desirable engine for the majority of fans which is a V10.

Of all the engines listed however, I'd Opt for the V8 because it is an excellent engine that sounds great, is reliable, and the rev limit can be raised a few thousand RPM which would improve both sound and performance. It was also much less expensive than the current money drain that is the current v6 Hybrid.

As such I cannot cast a vote because what I "want" isn't listed.

And here comes the "No true Scotsman" argument again.

I'm a real fan but don't think the most desirable option is a naturally aspirated V-10, or really any V-10.

It's this type of argument in the other thread that caused this poll to be created. I agree that the pole is limited in the number of choices but you're free to offer up your preference, as you have. The problem is that you offer it as what "real race fans" want instead as your own opinion. That some agree with that opinion doesn't mean that those who don't aren't "real race fans."

See, this is where EVERYONE here could go to a track and go into the garages of different types of cars/engines just to hear them rev, and I can say with 1,000,000% certainty that the ones that would leave everyone in awe and make every one feel excited would be the ones that make them feel their ferocity in their bones. Why do I know this? Because I've done this very thing for both 4-wheels and 2-wheels. Been there for Nascar, CART/ChampCar, F1, MotoGP, AMA, and Superbikes. And I went to so many Miami Grand Prix when it was held in bayfront park in the streets of downtown Miami and there you got to hear just about every engine type all in one race, not to mention over the entire weekend.

So while I agree the current PU has come around to sounding really stellar (ironically, honda's unit is by far the best sounding IMPO), I do feel the decibel level should be amplified a good bit, and having heard so many engines/types over my lifetime, I know there are far better sounding engines that would get the job done just as well and at a disgustingly better price point, so why would anyone prefer the current, lackluster sounding units?

Blinky, as much as I love that Porsche sound, it's TOUGH to pick just one car that sounds the best.
Personally I prefer the Mp412c GT3 sound (sadly McLaren deleted the video from the channel with the superb audio)

But a serious case can be made for the Mazda 787B.
Why they didn't continue with that program is beyond me. I think it's Mazda's greatest piece of anything they've ever produced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjwwV20iZYE
https://youtu.be/gMzLjgTArUI?t=781
https://youtu.be/A5d8YhAbg5g?t=229

As for your point on the cost of Engines at Indy, I fully agree and that would make it far easier for teams to enter F1. For a team like Manor the engine budget was almost half their entire operating budget. That cannot be moving forward or teams will have to slap these units onto soap box cars in order to take to the grid. It's just not right for a sport that struggles to keep teams on the grid year after year. What if Force India lose all their backing due to Mallya's legal issues? Could they survive such a thing with the price point for the current PU's? I'm not so sure they can.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Zoue wrote:I think that's a bit of a loaded poll, tbh. Think you should at least have an option for fast yet affordable. Many people object to the hybrids on cost and complexity grounds, not performance

Agreed but it's a poll that paints real fans into a corner buy not listing the most desirable engine for the majority of fans which is a V10.

Of all the engines listed however, I'd Opt for the V8 because it is an excellent engine that sounds great, is reliable, and the rev limit can be raised a few thousand RPM which would improve both sound and performance. It was also much less expensive than the current money drain that is the current v6 Hybrid.

As such I cannot cast a vote because what I "want" isn't listed.

And here comes the "No true Scotsman" argument again.

I'm a real fan but don't think the most desirable option is a naturally aspirated V-10, or really any V-10.

It's this type of argument in the other thread that caused this poll to be created. I agree that the pole is limited in the number of choices but you're free to offer up your preference, as you have. The problem is that you offer it as what "real race fans" want instead as your own opinion. That some agree with that opinion doesn't mean that those who don't aren't "real race fans."

See, this is where EVERYONE here could go to a track and go into the garages of different types of cars/engines just to hear them rev, and I can say with 1,000,000% certainty that the ones that would leave everyone in awe and make every one feel excited would be the ones that make them feel their ferocity in their bones. Why do I know this? Because I've done this very thing for both 4-wheels and 2-wheels. Been there for Nascar, CART/ChampCar, F1, MotoGP, AMA, and Superbikes. And I went to so many Miami Grand Prix when it was held in bayfront park in the streets of downtown Miami and there you got to hear just about every engine type all in one race, not to mention over the entire weekend.

So while I agree the current PU has come around to sounding really stellar (ironically, honda's unit is by far the best sounding IMPO), I do feel the decibel level should be amplified a good bit, and having heard so many engines/types over my lifetime, I know there are far better sounding engines that would get the job done just as well and at a disgustingly better price point, so why would anyone prefer the current, lackluster sounding units?

Blinky, as much as I love that Porsche sound, it's TOUGH to pick just one car that sounds the best.
Personally I prefer the Mp412c GT3 sound (sadly McLaren deleted the video from the channel with the superb audio)

But a serious case can be made for the Mazda 787B.
Why they didn't continue with that program is beyond me. I think it's Mazda's greatest piece of anything they've ever produced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjwwV20iZYE
https://youtu.be/gMzLjgTArUI?t=781
https://youtu.be/A5d8YhAbg5g?t=229

As for your point on the cost of Engines at Indy, I fully agree and that would make it far easier for teams to enter F1. For a team like Manor the engine budget was almost half their entire operating budget. That cannot be moving forward or teams will have to slap these units onto soap box cars in order to take to the grid. It's just not right for a sport that struggles to keep teams on the grid year after year. What if Force India lose all their backing due to Mallya's legal issues? Could they survive such a thing with the price point for the current PU's? I'm not so sure they can.

You quoted me but argued against a post by Blinky it seems.

I grew up in SoCal in the 60s & 70s so I too have experienced many types of race engines from many different disciplines. I can agree with you about the visceral feeling that older loud donkey engines can evoke, but as a fan what I want to see is performance.

We associate loud engines with performance because of past experience but it's no longer the case. It's time to accept the paradigm shift and realize that the future of high performance will cease to be about how much power can be squeezed out of an ounce of fossil fuel and more about how much performance they can get out of a kwHr of battery. It's not going to be loud but it will still be high performance and that's what I care about.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:See, this is where EVERYONE here could go to a track and go into the garages of different types of cars/engines just to hear them rev, and I can say with 1,000,000% certainty that the ones that would leave everyone in awe and make every one feel excited would be the ones that make them feel their ferocity in their bones. Why do I know this? Because I've done this very thing for both 4-wheels and 2-wheels. Been there for Nascar, CART/ChampCar, F1, MotoGP, AMA, and Superbikes. And I went to so many Miami Grand Prix when it was held in bayfront park in the streets of downtown Miami and there you got to hear just about every engine type all in one race, not to mention over the entire weekend.

No, you can't. You can say with whatever absurd certainty you want that you and people like you would feel that way. I know people who hate the feeling of vibration in their bones from sound, so how likely are they to love those engines? Not at all.

There are people who love a rock concert with the volume at ~120 dB. There are people who hate it, and would prefer to listen to the same music quietly on their headphones. Not everyone is like you: deal with it.

Performance is the most important to me. I've no problem with these engines, but whatever changes are made, I would like to see them made in the hunt for greater performance and more open development.

Exediron wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:See, this is where EVERYONE here could go to a track and go into the garages of different types of cars/engines just to hear them rev, and I can say with 1,000,000% certainty that the ones that would leave everyone in awe and make every one feel excited would be the ones that make them feel their ferocity in their bones. Why do I know this? Because I've done this very thing for both 4-wheels and 2-wheels. Been there for Nascar, CART/ChampCar, F1, MotoGP, AMA, and Superbikes. And I went to so many Miami Grand Prix when it was held in bayfront park in the streets of downtown Miami and there you got to hear just about every engine type all in one race, not to mention over the entire weekend.

No, you can't. You can say with whatever absurd certainty you want that you and people like you would feel that way. I know people who hate the feeling of vibration in their bones from sound, so how likely are they to love those engines? Not at all.

There are people who love a rock concert with the volume at ~120 dB. There are people who hate it, and would prefer to listen to the same music quietly on their headphones. Not everyone is like you: deal with it.

In both cases, those who dont like the sound loud are in the vast minority. Formula One has been blazing loud for decades and no one ever complained about it.

I went to 3.5 liter engine races, 3.0 liter races and 2.4 liter races and not once did I hear a complaint that it was too loud. Crowds of people loved it, were attracted to it, and were excited by it.

Some people like silent racing. They are in the distinct minority. Deal with it.

RaggedMan wrote:
We associate loud engines with performance because of past experience but it's no longer the case. It's time to accept the paradigm shift and realize that the future of high performance will cease to be about how much power can be squeezed out of an ounce of fossil fuel and more about how much performance they can get out of a kwHr of battery. It's not going to be loud but it will still be high performance and that's what I care about.

You, and the 6 other people, can watch Formula E and fantasize all you want about battery life.