Jenson Button's view on noise and torque of the turbo 6 vs NA V8...

[solstice]

Originally Posted by Jockey

Ding. WRC cars bounce off the rev limiter all the time. I guess according to some they're not driving their cars correctly.

Just to go back to where this conversation started, from the F1 drivers commentary , not mine:

"We have more power and I'm enjoying the way it feels. You also have a greater range with the gears, and you can shift early and still get the power."

Sauber team-mate Adrian Sutil adds: "It's not about using all the rev band anymore. The V8 was operating between 15 and 18,000rpm, so you always had to keep the revs up."

Interpret that as you like. Mine is not bouncing of the rev limiter all the time.
Bye now to this thread.

[Jockey]

So the point is with an engine like both WRC and new F1, you can short shift, if you like and not get power penalized or bounce if off the rev limiter, and not get power penalized.

Best of both worlds.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by solstice

Just to go back to where this conversation started, from the F1 drivers commentary , not mine:

"We have more power and I'm enjoying the way it feels. You also have a greater range with the gears, and you can shift early and still get the power."

Sauber team-mate Adrian Sutil adds: "It's not about using all the rev band anymore. The V8 was operating between 15 and 18,000rpm, so you always had to keep the revs up."

Interpret that as you like. Mine is not bouncing of the rev limiter all the time.
Bye now to this thread.

No prob

We'll just wait and see how the onboard footage and rev counter stuff works out

But so far, I'd rather go by how WRC cars are driven, how the engine dyno vids of these engines seem to indicate high RPMs. And the drivers just state the obvious, the turbo engines have a greater useable rev range and that you CAN shortshift and still have power... Nowhere did any of them say that you HAVE to short shift or that short shifting is better...

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Jockey

So the point is with an engine like both WRC and new F1, you can short shift, if you like and not get power penalized or bounce if off the rev limiter, and not get power penalized.

Best of both worlds.

But there are quite many here that still say that a turbo engine doesn't give any benefit in performance when shifting at redline and that they perform best if short shifted. Doesn't matter how many professional reviewers say otherwise, or examples of WRC cars etc that also show turbo cars wrung out to the redline. We are still wrong in our belief that a turbo engine has anything to gain by going to the redline... I allmost believe someone should tell Sebastien Loeb that he drove his WRC car the wrong way all those years he won title after title...

Wonder who's driving style I should put more value in? A 9 time WRC champion, journalist Chris Harris or the experts on these forums that own E9x M3's but have "tested" the F1x M5/6 or a 1M or a 335i and claims that there is nothing to gain by going above 5500rpm... Or that short shifting is preferrable on any turbo engine, based on those experiences...

Hmmm, I think I'd rather go with Loeb and Harris

[Jockey]

Sebastian Loeb the robot.

I was a Petter Solberg fan myself. But poor guy only won one WRC championship.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Jockey

Sebastian Loeb the robot.

I was a Petter Solberg fan myself. But poor guy only won one WRC championship.

I spoke briefly with Solberg in October last year, while I was sitting in a Bugatti EB 110

[solstice]

Originally Posted by Boss330

But there are quite many here that still say that a turbo engine doesn't give any benefit in performance when shifting at redline and that they perform best if short shifted. Doesn't matter how many professional reviewers say otherwise, or examples of WRC cars etc that also show turbo cars wrung out to the redline. We are still wrong in our belief that a turbo engine has anything to gain by going to the redline... I allmost believe someone should tell Sebastien Loeb that he drove his WRC car the wrong way all those years he won title after title...

Wonder who's driving style I should put more value in? A 9 time WRC champion, journalist Chris Harris or the experts on these forums that own E9x M3's but have "tested" the F1x M5/6 or a 1M or a 335i and claims that there is nothing to gain by going above 5500rpm... Or that short shifting is preferrable on any turbo engine, based on those experiences...

Hmmm, I think I'd rather go with Loeb and Harris

I just need to ask Boss330, are you in anyway associated to the car industry? I just find your defense of the turbo engine a bit over the top and the dripping sarcasm a bit unnecessary. Especially since pretty much everyone agree that turbo engines have clear advantages in many areas, just not all. The best of both worlds is BS. No turbo engine can replicate the best of an NA engine.

[aus]

My employer pays me $5-$25 mil a year. F1 can make things difficult for me if I speak out against the sport.
Do you really think I'm going to go out and say the new car sucks in any way???

.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by aus

My employer pays me $5-$25 mil a year. F1 can make things difficult for me if I speak out against the sport.
Do you really think I'm going to go out and say the new car sucks in any way???

.

Why assume that something negative wanted to be said? You can swing the bat both ways.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Why assume that something negative wanted to be said? You can swing the bat both ways.

The only negative I've heard so for is that the cars are very slow compared to last years at this stage of the testing. Adrian Sutil mentioned that they are too slow for F1 about 5s slower per lap at Jerez. Main reason being that the cars are trickier and break lose easier mainly due to new aero regulations and resulting lack of down force. This will be a very interesting season.

Most interesting at this stage is that Renault and RBR is struggling. This is promising if you like close races. An RBR fully prepared and ready makes for boring races...

[bm323]

Originally Posted by solstice

Bye now to this thread.

Originally Posted by solstice

I just need to ask Boss330, are you in anyway associated to the car industry? I just find your defense of the turbo engine a bit over the top and the dripping sarcasm a bit unnecessary....

You should ask yourself - dissing turbo engines, F series M5 and M6, whether you are in some archaic car industry. A person who doesn't believe in tracking cars and track times; probably owning/leasing an M for the first time, and long time ago singing praises of your turbo E60 535.

[/// M sa]

Turbo engines are the way of the future, like it or not but it's happening and the power delivery is limitless. I mean most car builders didn't all the sudden decide to go turbo happy because they didn't know their markets and product. Now we can all sit here and argue or get used to the facts of now and future.

[Jockey]

Originally Posted by solstice

The best of both worlds is BS. No turbo engine can replicate the best of an NA engine.

No, it's not BS. An engine that has to be at it's max operating limits (redline) to produce it's maximum power output is not that amazing. What's tough in engineering is getting that engine to produce it's maximum power long before it reaches its operating limits which a turbo engine can do (and can also do at its limits).

[Jockey]

Originally Posted by Boss330

I spoke briefly with Solberg in October last year, while I was sitting in a Bugatti EB 110

Lucky

[/// M sa]

Originally Posted by Jockey

No, it's not BS. An engine that has to be at it's max operating limits (redline) to produce it's maximum power output is not that amazing. What's tough in engineering is getting that engine to produce it's maximum power long before it reaches its operating limits which a turbo engine can do (and can also do at its limits).

That is what is missing from all of these arguments... Why rev to 1 million to achieve full power when you can achieve it much sooner and get your ass pushed back in to your seat?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Jockey

No, it's not BS. An engine that has to be at it's max operating limits (redline) to produce it's maximum power output is not that amazing. What's tough in engineering is getting that engine to produce it's maximum power long before it reaches its operating limits which a turbo engine can do (and can also do at its limits).

Originally Posted by //M sa

That is what is missing from all of these arguments... Why rev to 1 million to achieve full power when you can achieve it much sooner and get your ass pushed back in to your seat?

Read this interview with BMW M Head of engineering:

http://f10.m5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=588858

We sometimes hear that turbo engines are preferred because they are easier to build. Is that true?

No, at least not our engines, not by a long chalk. High speed aspirated engines are subjected to high mechanical forces, and I need charge changing that works not only at the highest speeds, but also with adequate efficiency in normal driving mode.

Furthermore, the turbo engine must fulfil high thermal requirements. The V8 engine of the BMW M5 can run with exhaust temperatures up to 1050 °C. The higher the possible temperatures, the better: I don’t need to enrich the mixture – and raise fuel consumption – for cooling the engine, and high temperatures are good for the response. These temperatures, though, must be mastered and controlled. The engine block of about 200 kg measures at least 110–115 °C, and the temperatures of the exhaust manifolds and turbochargers can be as high as 1000 °C.

These must be contained and controlled both in the moving car and after the engine has been switched off. On top, the engine can provide a great deal of power at low speeds too (as I said before: about twice as much as the old V10), so considerably more heat can accumulate there as well. For most cars, this is scarcely of any significance because the full power output is brought to bear only very rarely, if ever. Yet the BMW M5 is a sports car, and this power is demanded, especially on the race track.

Many claim that a turbo engine is much easier to build etc. The forces acting on the pistons and cyl heads in a turbo engine also offer quite demanding engineering challenges that you don't have in a high revving NA engine to the same extent.

[/// M sa]

That is the big reason I think the new M3 will blow pass the old one, achieving more power at list rpms while the old hog is trying to achieve the same at much higher rpms.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by solstice

I just need to ask Boss330, are you in anyway associated to the car industry? I just find your defense of the turbo engine a bit over the top and the dripping sarcasm a bit unnecessary. Especially since pretty much everyone agree that turbo engines have clear advantages in many areas, just not all. The best of both worlds is BS. No turbo engine can replicate the best of an NA engine.

No, I'm not affiliated with any auto manufacturer or companies involved in the development, sale or promotion of turbo products

I have two NA cars (one BMW with the N53 3l) and a Ford with a 2l that redlines at 7400rpm (my son's car). I also own a Ford Sierra RS Cosworth with a 2l turbo engine.

My responses on turbo engines are more because it seems like some here ( ) really use the same sarcasm towards turbo engines. Comments like; "there is no need to go above 5500rpm in the F10 M5", "it's better to shortshift for quickest acceleration" etc... That is just plain wrong, and every test or video show that the best acceleration is by going to the redline and how the S63Tu is impressive all the way to the redline. How much shortshifting do we see from the Ring taxi videos?

It's just that there are so many examples that contradict statements such as "it's allways better to short shift" and "there is no need/nothing to gain by going to the redline" in a turbo engine... So my question to you should rather be; are you in any way affiliated with a lobby group against turbo engines JK

And to show a example of a turbo engined race car that doesn't seem to short shift as a "general technique", which I also don't believe F1 cars will do in 2014:

[/// M sa]

Boss, your knowledge is very impressive and it is making it easier for the folks that have never driven a turbo car to make a decision on the new M3 (I have owned v8s and 6 turbo cars) and as someone that tracks quite a bit I am addicted to turbo cars and prefer a turbo over non turbo engine anyday.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by Boss330

No, I'm not affiliated with any auto manufacturer or companies involved in the development, sale or promotion of turbo products

I have two NA cars (one BMW with the N53 3l) and a Ford with a 2l that redlines at 7400rpm (my son's car). I also own a Ford Sierra RS Cosworth with a 2l turbo engine.

My responses on turbo engines are more because it seems like some here ( ) really use the same sarcasm towards turbo engines. Comments like; "there is no need to go above 5500rpm in the F10 M5", "it's better to shortshift for quickest acceleration" etc... That is just plain wrong, and every test or video show that the best acceleration is by going to the redline and how the S63Tu is impressive all the way to the redline. How much shortshifting do we see from the Ring taxi videos?

It's just that there are so many examples that contradict statements such as "it's allways better to short shift" and "there is no need/nothing to gain by going to the redline" in a turbo engine... So my question to you should rather be; are you in any way affiliated with a lobby group against turbo engines JK

And to show a example of a turbo engined race car that doesn't seem to short shift as a "general technique", which I also don't believe F1 cars will do in 2014:

Thanks. Well, I'm tired of the endless and often sarcastic arguing with you Boss330 so if your goal is to shut up and police any potential difference in driving turbo engines you've succeeded. Bye now.

[SoFlo335]

Originally Posted by Boss330

No, I'm not affiliated with any auto manufacturer or companies involved in the development, sale or promotion of turbo products

I have two NA cars (one BMW with the N53 3l) and a Ford with a 2l that redlines at 7400rpm (my son's car). I also own a Ford Sierra RS Cosworth with a 2l turbo engine.

My responses on turbo engines are more because it seems like some here ( ) really use the same sarcasm towards turbo engines. Comments like; "there is no need to go above 5500rpm in the F10 M5", "it's better to shortshift for quickest acceleration" etc... That is just plain wrong, and every test or video show that the best acceleration is by going to the redline and how the S63Tu is impressive all the way to the redline. How much shortshifting do we see from the Ring taxi videos?

It's just that there are so many examples that contradict statements such as "it's allways better to short shift" and "there is no need/nothing to gain by going to the redline" in a turbo engine... So my question to you should rather be; are you in any way affiliated with a lobby group against turbo engines JK

And to show a example of a turbo engined race car that doesn't seem to short shift as a "general technique", which I also don't believe F1 cars will do in 2014:

Actually, those GP3 cars ran NA 3.5L V6 engines in 2013. But from 2010-2012 they ran 2.0L turbo engines.

I do agree with everything else you have said. Although, it is common sometimes to short shift coming out of slow corners, but it has nothing to do with the amount of low end tq the engine creates. Instead, the short shift has more to do with traction, short shifting will help you not break traction, and still get a good exit.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by solstice

Thanks. Well, I'm tired of the endless and often sarcastic arguing with you Boss330 so if your goal is to shut up and police any potential difference in driving turbo engines you've succeeded. Bye now.

My goal is NOT to police anyone, just as much as I hope it's not your goal to shut up and police anyone that says turbo engines can be driven differently than what you think (someone who are quoting people like Chris Harris, owners of M5's, Sport Auto journalists etc)?

If you think of it as "policing" when I point out that your view on how to best extract the performance and best acceleration of the F10 M5 isn't universally agreed on. And that my experience is different than Yours. And that I cannot find any test reports claiming that the F10 M5 is faster when shortshifting or indeed that it "dies" above 5500rpm. Quite the contrary actually.

That isn't policing, it's offering a different view than yours. You don't have to agree. I'm just pointing out that my experience is different, and so it seems are the experience of numerous other well known and experienced testers...