Results 1 to 10 of 53
Thread: 10 grand? Seriously???!!!
-
3rd April 2014, 17:42 #1
10 grand? Seriously???!!!
All I can say is:
Renault's head of track operations, Remi Taffin, told AUTOSPORT that F1 would be stuck with the sound it has unless the regulations changed.
"There's two big items that drive this," he said.
"Firstly revs: we went from 18,000 to something like 12,000 this year.
"It's important to say it's based on the regulations, because they set 15,000 as a maximum, but the fuel-flow limitation means the maximum we're running, whether it's a Ferrari, a Mercedes, or a Renault, is 12,000 and at the end of the straight it could be 10 or 11,000.
"This makes a very big difference, because last year it was 18,000. Now where you've got grandstands it's something like 10."
"Every generation's memory is exactly as long as its own experience." --John Kenneth Galbraith
-
3rd April 2014, 18:01 #2
I don't think you understand the article.
2nd place in the big quizz challenge!
-
3rd April 2014, 21:00 #3
-
3rd April 2014, 21:16 #4
-
3rd April 2014, 21:20 #5
-
3rd April 2014, 22:21 #6
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Posts
- 1,461
- Like
- 109
- Liked 47 Times in 35 Posts
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
-
4th April 2014, 06:56 #7
BBC had a Hamilton article (ghosted) yesterday where he said it - more torque at lower rpm is making them change to a higher gear at much lower rpm than with V8/10s hence the sound is compromised. Also to save fuel they are "coasting" by lifting off the throttle for 100+m of the straight and then braking.
Tito Vilanova = :champion:
-
4th April 2014, 07:05 #8"It's important to say it's based on the regulations, because they set 15,000 as a maximum, but the fuel-flow limitation means the maximum we're running, whether it's a Ferrari, a Mercedes, or a Renault, is 12,000 and at the end of the straight it could be 10 or 11,000.
-
4th April 2014, 14:22 #9
10K is pretty domestic eh.
Everyone, and I mean everyone who I have spoken to about the "new" F1 makes comments that are negative to some degree. Such a shame.
Aside from the easy solution of removing some/all fuel restrictions, I wonder if allowing traction control might improve the situation. Traction control could aid immensely the final RPM/speed at the end of the straights.
The current cars are pretty much point and squirt and I think this is a big part of the problem. No doubt the V6's are grunty motors but they may need traction control to allow drivers to push the fronts harder coming out of the corners to achieve higher speeds down straights.
As to TC's effect on fuel consumption, fuel weight is its own penalty so with a fuel flow limit there is no need for a maximum fuel load. That would have to go.
-
4th April 2014, 14:31 #10
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
- Posts
- 10,568
- Like
- 695
- Liked 653 Times in 512 Posts
Interesting, but I personally would hate to see TC back. I like the cars being difficult to drive.
What I would do, is get rid of the limited fuel. I would either give them as much fuel as they need or maybe even bring back refuelling.
To be honest. I am enjoying F1 so far this season, but I cant see F1 improving in the longer term for me, because the sport IMO is getting to bogged down.
Its hard to decide. Technology is important but that leads to less driver input and a lesser sporting challenge.
I guess the answer is that everyone wants and likes different things.
What does seem certain is the number of people losing interest in F1 is increasing.I still exist and still find the forum occasionally. Busy busy
Walk This Way - Aerosmith
Never Ending Song Titles - Words...