Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 53 of 53
  1. #51
    Senior Member Jag_Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    8,489
    Like
    156
    Liked 210 Times in 159 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfa Fan View Post
    I don't think you understand the article.
    While that's possible, I believe that I do understand that the FIA fuel flow regulations have limited engines DESIGNED to exceed 15K rpms down to 10K rpms. Think about that for a second. The engines are maxing out at 67% of the rpm limit that they were DESIGNED for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zico View Post
    ???

    Unless I am missing something, Jag is criticizing the current fuel optimised typical 10-11k rpm revs used by the new power units.
    Exactly. While I can still greatly enjoy the racing (and I am), it's rather obvious to me that it was a waste of engineering resources to design engines capable of running (reliably) at a 15k rpm limit (not a redline), and then throttle them back to 10k rpms because of a fuel flow limit. F1 is about designing components that can perform at an optimal level before they break. These aren't passenger car engines. Why waste money designing something that's only going to be allowed to operate at 67% of its (supposedly) mandated limit?


    Quote Originally Posted by driveace View Post
    The engines are more powerful now with turbo,s and don't have to rev to 18000 revs any more .As has been said by the commentators they have to be careful out of corners,putting the power on ,or they get wheelspin in 5th gear
    And lap times are as fast as last year with the normally aspirated V8s
    The engines are substantially less powerful than the previous 2.4 V8s. I've seen estimates that ranged from 550-600 for the 1.5 turbos vs. 750 +/- for the V8s. The total output from the power-unit is in the same ball park, depending on which manufacturer is being looked at.
    Last edited by Jag_Warrior; 11th April 2014 at 18:33.
    "Every generation's memory is exactly as long as its own experience." --John Kenneth Galbraith

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,946
    Like
    173
    Liked 308 Times in 206 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior View Post
    The engines are substantially less powerful than the previous 2.4 V8s. I've seen estimates that ranged from 550-600 for the 1.5 turbos vs. 750 +/- for the V8s. The total output from the power-unit is in the same ball park, depending on which manufacturer is being looked at.
    The cars are already almost as quick as last years V8's and that's even with less aero.
    I share your feelings on the optimum revs used but personally I have no problem with the power figures. They may not have the same amount of bhp but they do have substantially more torque on the whole which takes them up to about the same performance level. It also makes them a harder to drive which puts more emphasis on driver skill... a really positive thing in my book.
    The emergence of the new 'Rainmaster' - Mad Max at Interlagos 2016!

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,461
    Like
    109
    Liked 47 Times in 35 Posts
    I dont agree with Traction Control .Lets see who can drive the cars well dry or wet without all the Gizmo,s
    As Zico says the cars are more or less as fast,and lap times are only slightly less than with last years V8s,even with less aero and smaller wings .
    Next year with development continuing the lap times may even be lower than with the old engines

Posting Permissions

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