Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 56
  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,032
    Like
    0
    Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SGWilko
    So what - Renault have come and gone as they pleased in the past........
    Because they supply a fair few teams and want to supply one more. Who would step in? Cosworth?!?!
    :champion: WRC3 championship, WRC4 championship, WRC4 PCWRC, WRC4 ERC
    Winner - TRD2 Bathurst:burnout:

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    5,675
    Like
    6
    Liked 47 Times in 33 Posts
    hopefully it appears that Renault are on board with the new rules, agreed they've gone before, but at the moment they supply the fastest team, one other competitive team as well as an improving Lotus. Likely to add one more to the list too. There are not many alternatives these days, and at the moment I don't think Cosworth are at the level or Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari. At the moment we need a 4th competitive engine supplier IMO
    "I" before "E" except after "C". Weird.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oradea
    Posts
    2,637
    Like
    75
    Liked 137 Times in 110 Posts
    2014? The world will end 7-8 times by then

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    On Chesapeake Bay.
    Posts
    4,299
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Ben
    2014? The world will end 7-8 times by then
    LOL.
    HINCHTOWN!!

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,170
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rollo
    I actually don't understand what the reasoning is behind specifying the cylinder configuration in the rules.
    The last time we had turbo engines, there were inline-4s, V6s and V8s and they all had their own distinctive engine notes.

    According to Honda's research in the late 1980s, the ideal size for a cylinder in an Otto cycle engine is about 298cc (I did see the calculations once, hooboy!); therefore at 1.6L ideally the best engine config would either be an inline-5 or a V5. To the best of my knowledge, only Honda and VW-Audi have put V5 engines into production. I5s have been used by far more companies.
    The reason is simple: they speficy the the cylinder configuration to even out the playing field just a little bit and to avoid excessive cost that would go into research to find out which is the optimum cylinder configuration. The differences between the engines could be huge if the rules were more free.
    “Leave me alone!”

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,076
    Like
    0
    Liked 17 Times in 15 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rollo
    the ideal size for a cylinder in an Otto cycle engine is about 298cc
    So then what you're saying is that a 4.8L V16 engine would be the best. Gets my vote!

    CMR4L titles: 2, RBR MF Cup titles: 2
    :champion:

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,607
    Like
    28
    Liked 186 Times in 146 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce D
    So then what you're saying is that a 4.8L V16 engine would be the best. Gets my vote!

    How about a 1.5 litre V16? If they got 600bhp out of one in 1947, then surely 1200+ should be no problem now. That would really be something.

  8. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    82
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rollo
    According to Honda's research in the late 1980s, the ideal size for a cylinder in an Otto cycle engine is about 298cc (I did see the calculations once, hooboy!); therefore at 1.6L ideally the best engine config would either be an inline-5 or a V5. To the best of my knowledge, only Honda and VW-Audi have put V5 engines into production. I5s have been used by far more companies.
    Agree, V5 isn't common configuration. It's not real V engine, but rather a VR5 engine, five cylinders sharing a single bank. Four cylinders doesn't sound so good for an F1 car, but the turbo might help it sounds better. The best choice perhaps would be 1.8L V6 turboed engine.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Exmuhle.....
    Posts
    5,300
    Like
    2,621
    Liked 1,252 Times in 681 Posts
    Personally, I’d love to see a mix of V6, V8, V10 & V12 engines. Not going to happen however. The car industry is going to small capacity turbo charged engines – Motorsport has to follow – WTCC, WRC have gone 1.6T engines, now it’s F1’s turn to follow suit.

    Is there a better sound than that of Porsche engined Flat-6 ???

  10. #20
    Senior Member 555-04Q2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    7,996
    Like
    17
    Liked 16 Times in 16 Posts
    Generally speaking V8's are the best engines for racing. They sound good, are pretty reliable, powerful, easy to get more ooommmfffff out of etc etc.
    "But it aint how hard you hit, it's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done." Rocky.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •