V6 Or V8

[driveace]

The Dwarf now says that F1 should go back to V8 engines,as the V6 engines are costing the teams too much money . Thought the idea of the V6 turbo engines was a cost savings exercise ?Why the change of heart ? Is it because only one engine supplier has managed to produce a good reliable engine or are there ulterior motive behind his plans

[Robinho]

But they've spent that money creating and developing the new engines, the only way to make that situation better is to use them for a period of time. The new engines are an absolute marvel of engineering and so much more fuel efficient than the old V8's, they could go back, but would they want all the ERS and associated gubbins, which cost a fortune and would need to be adapted for the V8 non-turbos

[Robinho]

Plus the technologies are so much more relevant and the manufacturers wanted them. No way they'll go backwards now

[Rollo]

Why the change of heart?
It is because only one engine supplier has managed to produce a good reliable engine. The Dwarf's whinge is a commercial one based on the spectacle and the show of the business, nothing more and nothing less. I honestly don't think he gives a rip about the technical arguments or merits either way.

[Tazio]

Could someone PM me when Bernie is dead? Thanks in advance! ;)

[Whyzars]

Imagine the longest wettest smelliest fart you have ever heard.

Bag it up and sink it into a tank full of month old cow excretions. Stir vigorously.

Throw in a match and allow the bubbling morass of discharge to permeate through a series of rubber bladders.

The sound of those rubber bladders is the sound that the V6 F1 cars make and why Bernie wants to go back to the V8 screamers.


Cost may be a factor but methinks its the disastrous sounds that emanate from the V6's and the repulsed fan base that has been created.

You'll only ever win them back with a V8.

[Rollo]

Cost may be a factor but methinks its the disastrous sounds that emanate from the V6's and the repulsed fan base that has been created.


I remember four-pots and V6's in the days of the McLaren TAG-Porsche, Benetton Ford, Lotus Honda and Williams Honda and they sounded fine.

V6's aren't necessarily the cause of the sounds.

[Mark]

Bernie hasn't said he wants to go back because of the sound - at least not in the article I read : http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12472/9610936/bernie-ecclestone-will-again-propose-f1-returns-to-normally-aspirated-engines it's about costs and ability of the competition to keep up.

Now I've said in the past that, the noise doesn't matter one bit, who cares about the noise they make as long as the racing is good? Right? No! I was completely wrong, the engine sound does matter, it matters a lot.

I remember many years after a long off season and tuning in to watch qualifying and hearing those engine noises for the first time in months and being blown away. That doesn't happen any more.

Listen to the Ferrari's here and tell me that isn't pure art https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqaJKTRs-Kg

[inimitablestoo]

V6 or V8? Simple answer - yes. Or indeed four-cylinder, or V10, or V5 or whatever you want. That was the only disappointing thing for me about these new regulations: everyone's forced down the same route again when there was an opportunity for some WEC-like variation.

[airshifter]

The turbo engines make great torque, but the packaging is lacking. Many teams struggle to fix things that were much quicker in the V8 days.

The money has already been spent now, so it would be stupid to get rid of them quickly. If Bernie was really worried about cost savings, he should have just suggested minor changes to the long tested reliable V8s that the teams were using. More change = more money... AGAIN!

[Doc Austin]

Honda would have to spend all that money developing their motor and it's energy recovery systems, and then throw it all away after a single year.

It's not hard to imagine them being unhappy about that.

[Whyzars]

V6's aren't necessarily the cause of the sounds.

Agreed. The V6's aren't the cause but the V6's are wearing this as part of the "revolution" in F1. Its done now and this could just be Bernie's way of saying I told you so.


The teams have produced marvellous performers - even the "slow" ones. I can't see any way that F1 could ever return to a V8 based formula.

Now, if the V6 adoption was driven by the manufacturers then should we expect 3 cylinders in years to come?

I wonder how long before KERS is dumped.


My F1 would be loud and simple and the rule book written on a beer coaster. They've chosen another way...

[Whyzars]

Listen to the Ferrari's here and tell me that isn't pure art https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqaJKTRs-Kg


(huge sigh)...

Can you believe I had actually forgotten how good that Ferrari sounded. Thanks.


I have never had a problem with how Bernie see's F1.

He should be supported more than he is harpooned.

[Jag_Warrior]

Honda would have to spend all that money developing their motor and it's energy recovery systems, and then throw it all away after a single year.

It's not hard to imagine them being unhappy about that.

Yes, it's rather stupid for Bernie (and Christian Horner) to think that switching boats mid-stream would be a good idea. Did no one realize that the world was in the worst recession since the 1930's and sponsorship would be down when this formula change was put in stone? Do these people not venture out into the real world at least once or twice a year? But now, we have what we have. And IMO, they're going to have to live with it, or risk losing at least one, if not two, engine manufacturers. But as these development costs are amortized, the cost of the engines should come down, depending on how the various OEMs have structured their cost formulas. I hope they do tweak them, make them louder and (most of all) let them up the revs by doing away with that completely stooopid fuel flow rule. A lot of money was already wasted developing engines that could/should rev higher than they're being allowed to rev. And for what reason? Oh yeah, to prove that F1 is environmentally friendly. Please! This is F1 racing! Let the tree huggers watch Formula E if they want to calculate carbon footprints!

These things sound about like IRL engines because they rev to about the same range as IRL engines. Let them get up to about 14 grand and with some exhaust tweaking, I don't think anyone is going to complain about "the noise". The turbo is not the problem. The 2.65 turbos from the old CART series (not the spec Champ Car series!) sounded just fine. That's a sweet sound (sounds - since the Hondas, Mercedes, Ford-Cosworths and Toyotas had different engine notes) that will go with me to my grave.

Since I didn't care for the N/A V8s F1 was using either, I'd be fine with just sticking with this formula, but refining it to make it more "racey".

[henners88]

Keep the new engines but install a speaker into the cars to make them sound like f1 cars again. It could be an MP3 of the old V8 or V10 on loop. Jobs a good un.

[Mark]

Keep the new engines but install a speaker into the cars to make them sound like f1 cars again. It could be an MP3 of the old V8 or V10 on loop. Jobs a good un.

Hehe. I don't think it needs to be that blatant but I'm sure the exhausts could be changed in some way to make the sound better.

[Tazio]

I think they should just hand out earplugs at the track that play the melody of screaming v-10s.
Also sell them online that simulcast that sound for $199.99 :dork:

[Bagwan]

I think they should just hand out earplugs at the track that play the melody of screaming v-10s.
Also sell them online that simulcast that sound for $199.99 :dork:

Tazzy , you might just have something there .

If you had the headphones programmable , you could offer the sounds of any year , subbed in for the current sound , because the cars , as shown in telemetry data offered on-screen , give enough information to enable the geek to apply the Doppler effect to the gear change on the way by .

Mind you , they'd have to figure a way to realistically apply the old sounds to the modern gear box as well , without sounding too contrived .
You could have an array of sounds from which to choose , from 12 down to 4 cyl , turbo or not , and hell , toss in the sound of the Jetson space car , or the sound of a galloping horse if you want , for each of the different cars on the grid .

You need a nerd , Taz .
You've got a revenue stream there for Bernie to have a look at .

Then , you can buy nine more of those scooters , and hire the girls to ride them .

[Triumph]

There's no reason why V6 turbos can't sound good (see late-1980s), so there must be some scope for improving the sound of the current configuration. At the moment they sound like electric window motors, so plenty of room for improvement.

The old V8s sounded like high-revving four-cylinder engines thanks to the firing order, so nothing much to get excited about there, although they sounded infinitely better than the current efforts.

[Doc Austin]

I liked Horner's idea of throwing out the ers/kers equipment and run the current engines with an unlimited fuel rate. They could turn them a little higher and as a result they would sound better. Horner recons they could get 900hp out of an engine like that.

In the long run the FIA needs to make up it's mind and stick with it for five years. Otherwise development costs are going to break everyone.

While they are at it, I'de like to see the DRS disappear too so they can get back to real racing and honest overtaking.

[inimitablestoo]

I'll second that last bit. Not sure DRS is really necessary now that the tyres are the way they are.

[Mark]

You can't really get rid of the energy recovery systems etc as that's the entire point of the engines being hybrid petrol electric.

[kfzmeister]

I don't mind the current formula. I think Bernie always thinks in terms of money and there are many that complain about the (lack of) of noise, so he wants to do something. Viewership is down and i even read that TV is considering not renewing with F1 for broadcasting rights due to lack of viewership.
Not sure what the problem is, but they could do something about the current engine noise/ experience for the fans, especially at the tracks.

[journeyman racer]

They should've allowed both. However with automotive manufacturers wanting to invest in something other than the old V8 boat anchors, there should be an understanding that of a performance favouritism towards the current turbo cars.

The problem this time round has been the implementation of the rules. Last race of 13, everybody using na 2.4l V8s. Next race, the first race of 14, everybody being forced to use ers 1.6l turbos. In any context of life, too much change (even if it's for the better) causes pain.

Go back to the first era of turbos. There had been rule to include them for 11 seasons before anybody thought of it. Then Renault debuted with one at the 1977 British GP. At that point, it wasn't til the 84 Austrian GP that the whole field used turbos. The change was organic. It was a natural transition, was not forced, that took just over 7 years.

Similar could've happened now. It could've opened up the possibility of even cheaper engine deals for using a V8 (by a manufacturer or specialist supplier) on the understanding you'd more likely be at the middle/rear of the field. While also allowing manufacturers to get value for developing the ers turbos, which seems to be where automotive industry is going.

[zako85]

Considering the runaway engine cost situation, I think they should consider 4-cylinder turbos, as was originally planned years ago. The smaller engine will have two less cylinders than V6, which means less valves, pistons, etc, which hopefully reduce the price of the engine by about one-third.

[Rollo]

Considering the runaway engine cost situation, I think they should consider 4-cylinder turbos, as was originally planned years ago. The smaller engine will have two less cylinders than V6, which means less valves, pistons, etc, which hopefully reduce the price of the engine by about one-third.

Won't.
The price of the engine has to do with the development costs and the testing which goes into producing it. The actual cost of fabricating the components is probably a peppercorn amount.

The whole reason why Honda and Renault went with the V10 engines in 1989 was because the ideal capacity for a cylinder in a reciprocating engine is about 298cc. There's some calculus to describe why but it basically has to do with Charles's gas law.
3500/8 = 437.5
3500/10 = 350
3500/12 = 291

12 should be the best for a 3.5L formula but a V12 or flat-12 requires 3 main bearings; whereas a V10 needs only 2. For a 3L formula, a V10 is a fait accompli.

For a 1.6L formula 1600/298 = / 5.36. A V5 or inline-5 is probably the most ideal answer.

[N. Jones]

I liked the sound of the V8's. The V6's do not sound right.

[schmenke]

...

For a 1.6L formula 1600/298 = / 5.36. A V5 or inline-5 is probably the most ideal answer.

Results in an undesirably high centre of gravity.


Interesting post though Rollo.

[Rollo]

Results in an undesirably high centre of gravity.


Interesting post though Rollo.

Maybe a V5 might do, but an inline-5's centre of gravity wouldn't be any higher than any other inline engine.

Inline-5s won the WRC more than 30 years ago in the Audi Quattro. They sounded glorious - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHVaeULSuO0

[zako85]

Won't.
The price of the engine has to do with the development costs and the testing which goes into producing it. The actual cost of fabricating the components is probably a peppercorn amount.

The whole reason why Honda and Renault went with the V10 engines in 1989 was because the ideal capacity for a cylinder in a reciprocating engine is about 298cc. There's some calculus to describe why but it basically has to do with Charles's gas law.
3500/8 = 437.5
3500/10 = 350
3500/12 = 291

12 should be the best for a 3.5L formula but a V12 or flat-12 requires 3 main bearings; whereas a V10 needs only 2. For a 3L formula, a V10 is a fait accompli.

For a 1.6L formula 1600/298 = / 5.36. A V5 or inline-5 is probably the most ideal answer.

You're talking about what's the fastest, but I am talking about what's the most affordable Inline-4 has less parts, and therefore costs less. By this logic, an inline-3 would work quite well too :)

[Doc Austin]

Maybe a V5 might do, but an inline-5's centre of gravity wouldn't be any higher than any other inline engine.

I believe that Brabham actually turned their motor (BMW, if I recall correctly) 90 degrees so it laid flat. The whole car looked like a squashed roller skate. I'm pretty sure it was this car............


https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR9An1den5KRHzPGXsjzHis1BtkuW-nldcuLIfpWYS3fy-65mIJ

[schmenke]

I believe that Brabham actually turned their motor (BMW, if I recall correctly) 90 degrees so it laid flat. ...

Which of course, in usual FIA fashion, was subsequently banned.

[Rollo]

You're talking about what's the fastest, but I am talking about what's the most affordable Inline-4 has less parts, and therefore costs less. By this logic, an inline-3 would work quite well too :)

The number of parts said engine has is almost an incidental when it comes to engine costs in Formula One. The real costs come in the research and development of the engine and those costs will be incurred whatever configuration you choose.

http://www.worldsteelprices.com/

Think about it - if the price of a new car was mainly determined by the price of the ingredients, then a two tonne car shouldn't cost more than about $3000. There's only about $1400 worth of raw materials in a car.

[zako85]

The price of car is not determined by weight. Nobody comes to a dealership and says, give me two tons of car. What kind? The Japanese I suppose.

The complexity of design and manufacturing is more important. That's why I say, 4-cylidenrs is better because it's less complex :)

[anfield5]

why should it be a v6, v8, v10 etc. Why not simpl;y a power unit/engine with x power output and x displacement and let variety be the spice of F1 life. SOme of the best GPs were in the 70's when different manufactures had different engine configs. i.e. Ferrari V12's vs Cosworth V8's. Both were 3 litres, the Fezzas were more powerful, but heavier, the Cozzies were more driveable and lighter. The V12 were faster but the v8's got into and out of corners better and the racing was simply better

[anfield5]

I believe that Brabham actually turned their motor (BMW, if I recall correctly) 90 degrees so it laid flat. The whole car looked like a squashed roller skate. I'm pretty sure it was this car............


https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR9An1den5KRHzPGXsjzHis1BtkuW-nldcuLIfpWYS3fy-65mIJ



Correct Doc, unfortunately the BMW engine didn't enjoy being tilted over and it had endless oil pressure problems and the experiment was shelved.

[Doc Austin]

One of the great roadster builders laid the engine down flat like that and won Indianapolis several times. I will have to research it out because I can't remember who it was.

[Doc Austin]

It was Jimmy Bryan in George Salih's Belond AP Exhaust Special, but only once.

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/nostalgia-1958-indy-500-the-salih-and-epperly-laydown-roadsters/


http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/01-Bryan.jpg

[anfield5]

1957 with a tilted Offenhauser engine Sam Hanks won like this too. The engine was tilted 72 degrees off centre - it was the same car that Bryan won in in 1958

http://www.motorabilia.biz/Images/New%20Models/Carousel1/Laydown%20Roadster/photos/Laydown%20Roadster%201957%20Indy%20500%20winner%20 002.jpg

[Rollo]

The price of car is not determined by weight. Nobody comes to a dealership and says, give me two tons of car. What kind? The Japanese I suppose.

The complexity of design and manufacturing is more important. That's why I say, 4-cylidenrs is better because it's less complex :)

Is it less complex?

Ctrl-C and Ctrl-X are the friends of modern engine designers.

Ford's 6.8L V10 which found it's way into the Ford Excursion, was a Ctrl-C Ctrl-V version of the 5.4L V8 Modular engine. The bore, stroke and majority of engine bits were the same bits.
The 3.8L 90° V6 which found its way into Chevrolets, Buicks, Holdens &c. again had a bore, stroke and majority of engine bits which were the same as the 5.0L 90° V8.
Apart from extra fluid and electrical lines, the difference in level of complexity is diddly squat.

I'll bet that the 1.0L 3 Cylinder EcoBoost engine in the Fiesta is a Ctrl-X version of the 1.5L 4Cylinder EcoBoost engine but with different cylinder liners and possibly an unbalanced flywheel to avoid the use of balance shafts (I'm only taking a guess here).

The point being that when an engine manufacturer commits to building an engine for F1, the cost of the engine probably wouldn't vary that much what ever the engine config was, because the real costs are incurred in the R&D and the testing. The level of complexity resulting from the particular cylinder config, is probably pocket change in comparison to the costs of bench testing, materials testing &c.

[Rollo]

why should it be a v6, v8, v10 etc. Why not simpl;y a power unit/engine with x power output and x displacement and let variety be the spice of F1 life. SOme of the best GPs were in the 70's when different manufactures had different engine configs. i.e. Ferrari V12's vs Cosworth V8's. Both were 3 litres, the Fezzas were more powerful, but heavier, the Cozzies were more driveable and lighter. The V12 were faster but the v8's got into and out of corners better and the racing was simply better

I always wondered about a radial-9 with three banks of three or a radial-10 with two banks of five. That'd make the engine shorter than a long V10 which would shift the centre of gravity towards the centre of the car.

The 1935 Monaco Trossi... radial-16... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Monaco#mediaviewer/File:Monaco-Trossi1935.jpg
BRM did build an H-16 and it even won the 1966 US GP??

[airshifter]

I always wondered about a radial-9 with three banks of three or a radial-10 with two banks of five. That'd make the engine shorter than a long V10 which would shift the centre of gravity towards the centre of the car.

The 1935 Monaco Trossi... radial-16... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Monaco#mediaviewer/File:Monaco-Trossi1935.jpg
BRM did build an H-16 and it even won the 1966 US GP??

If anyone could make it work, it would have to be the F1 crew. It would seem the balance would trade issues with the center of gravity, but in F1 who knows that kind of cylinder spacing they might come up with.


Fully agree that R&D, development, etc would far outweigh the materials aspect though.

[AndyL]

Fully agree that R&D, development, etc would far outweigh the materials aspect though.

That development process is going to involve a lot of fabricating parts and assembling and disassembling engines, so I think there could be some merit in Zako's suggestion.

[schmenke]

If anyone could make it work, it would have to be the F1 crew. It would seem the balance would trade issues with the center of gravity, ....

Yep, radial engines, although light weight, have the disadvantage of having to be configured vertical resulting in a high CG.

[anfield5]

but just imagine the noise that would scream out of them

[driveace]

Or a Rotary ?

[schmenke]

I think every F1 designer would use a rotary if they regulations would allow. A rotary is the smallest, lightest, biggest-bang-for-buck engine, with fewest moving parts and low CG.

[giu canbera]

I'm really into these 3cyl turbocharged engines that Ford and Nissan has been testing around. Together with an Electric Engine they could produce a 900HP engine. Refueling would be necessary, but this should be the TOP TECH to be explored by F1 right? Since we have the Super Formula cars (Formula Nippon) using 4cyl turbo (+ spec Dallara chassis) turning faster laps than NON MANUFACTURER teams in Suzuka....
I luv big engines and stuff...the sounding... but I'm more curious about new things like those 3cyl..

[nigelred5]

I'm really into these 3cyl turbocharged engines that Ford and Nissan has been testing around. Together with an Electric Engine they could produce a 900HP engine. Refueling would be necessary, but this should be the TOP TECH to be explored by F1 right? Since we have the Super Formula cars (Formula Nippon) using 4cyl turbo (+ spec Dallara chassis) turning faster laps than NON MANUFACTURER teams in Suzuka....
I luv big engines and stuff...the sounding... but I'm more curious about new things like those 3cyl..

Suzuki had 3 cylinder turbocharged/fuel injected engines in the 80's. My girlfriend in college had a 3cyl turbo Geo metro.

[driveace]

AND its only got tw wheels !

[Tazio]

two wheels mate, but mine is only 3 225 cm pistones :angel: That is onlty 675 for the ventire powerplant :angel:
In case anyone is interested; I do enjoy riding this rig. :dork: :D

[Malbec]

I think every F1 designer would use a rotary if they regulations would allow. A rotary is the smallest, lightest, biggest-bang-for-buck engine, with fewest moving parts and low CG.

And sound absolutely fantastic too.

[Doc Austin]

While we're at it, the Turbines sounded pretty cool too. They were quiet, but they were so different from everything else.

[anfield5]

While we're at it, the Turbines sounded pretty cool too. They were quiet, but they were so different from everything else.

Agreed Doc. The Lotus 56 indy car and 56B F1 car were incredible. Unfortunately the throttle lag and spooling times made the 56B undrivable, but at speed it was mind blowing to see

[Doc Austin]

The throttle lag wasn't so crippling at Indianapolis because they kept the RPMS up. For qualifying in 1968, Granatelli's team ran the idle at 75%. Obviously you could never get away with that when 32 other cars were out there in the race, but for single car qualifying it killed the throttle lag and they snagged the first two spots.

I was at the 1868 race and the turbines were pretty much roundly despised. The car owners did a good job of selling it to the public that the things were evil and so did USAC. When the two remaining turbines fell out of the race literally seconds apart, the place erupted in a way you would have to experience to believe. It was 300,000 people cheering for them to fail. Looking back, that part was a little sad, even if I was one of those cheering.

I think we were all to blind to see the future unfolding before us. At least for oval racing the turbine would have been the way to go, and no doubt competition development would have gotten a grip on the throttle lag. Granatelli said a turbine engine could run ten seasons without a rebuild, so imagine the cost savings there alone. During 1968, they ran two cars for the whole season and the motors never came out of the cars.

Unfortunately no one wanted their equipment obsoleted overnight, in spite of the obvious long term benefits, and the owners, along with USAC, railroaded through rule changes that made the turbines totally uncompetitive. They did not even try to give the turbines a chance to compete on even terms, they just restricted it so much that it went away.

While people always talk about technology, innovation and improving the breed, in a lot of ways all of that ground to a halt with Parnelli's gearbox. That was the moment that rules began to change all over the world to slow the cars and their development down. It was only a few weeks later that Ford swept Lemans for the second time and the FIA was on it's way to ban the big seven litre monsters.

The turbine cars were a watershed moment in motorsports and the evolution of racing technology. Even today I don't believe many people understand how important those cars could have been.

[anfield5]

The throttle lag wasn't so crippling at Indianapolis because they kept the RPMS up. For qualifying in 1968, Granatelli's team ran the idle at 75%. Obviously you could never get away with that when 32 other cars were out there in the race, but for single car qualifying it killed the throttle lag and they snagged the first two spots.

I was at the 1868 race and the turbines were pretty much roundly despised. The car owners did a good job of selling it to the public that the things were evil and so did USAC. When the two remaining turbines fell out of the race literally seconds apart, the place erupted in a way you would have to experience to believe. It was 300,000 people cheering for them to fail. Looking back, that part was a little sad, even if I was one of those cheering.

I think we were all to blind to see the future unfolding before us. At least for oval racing the turbine would have been the way to go, and no doubt competition development would have gotten a grip on the throttle lag. Granatelli said a turbine engine could run ten seasons without a rebuild, so imagine the cost savings there alone. During 1968, they ran two cars for the whole season and the motors never came out of the cars.

Unfortunately no one wanted their equipment obsoleted overnight, in spite of the obvious long term benefits, and the owners, along with USAC, railroaded through rule changes that made the turbines totally uncompetitive. They did not even try to give the turbines a chance to compete on even terms, they just restricted it so much that it went away.

While people always talk about technology, innovation and improving the breed, in a lot of ways all of that ground to a halt with Parnelli's gearbox. That was the moment that rules began to change all over the world to slow the cars and their development down. It was only a few weeks later that Ford swept Lemans for the second time and the FIA was on it's way to ban the big seven litre monsters.

The turbine cars were a watershed moment in motorsports and the evolution of racing technology. Even today I don't believe many people understand how important those cars could have been.

You were at the 1868 race?

[Rollo]

You were at the 1868 race?

Because I have access to time travel I thought about going to watch it but I pulled the wibbly lever instead of the whatsi lever and ended up in 1768.

Some fellow called Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot was leading the steam class when he careened around a corner at a shocking 2½mph and drfited into a wall.

[anfield5]

into the wall or through the wall?

[Doc Austin]

You were at the 1868 race?

Uhhhhh...... not exactly.

I did get to go to the 68, 69, 73, 74 and 83 races. If for nothing else it is worth going just for the sheer spectacle. Most of the time the racing was pretty good too and the cars were interesting, even after they effectively banned the turbines.

Part of my famly lived in Indianapolis and I would stay at the family funeral home along with about 100 other funeral directors and undertakers from around the country who were guests of the business. I would get off the plane, someone would hand me a beer and it was five days of drinking and going to all the races with a bunch of undertakers letting loose on holiday.

Damm, those people could party.

[Rollo]

into the wall or through the wall?

Through the wall.

What was the name of that building again... d'Cooladé? OH YEAH!