New engine regs for 2013

It would seem logical to allow some sort of development to comply with the new regs. Assuming, of course, that logic gets factored into the equation at some point,... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billiaml

It would seem logical to allow some sort of development to comply with the new regs. Assuming, of course, that logic gets factored into the equation at some point,... :rolleyes:

---

Yeah, but for me the nightmare scenario (or realistic nightmare scenario) would be allowing say, one year of development from 2013, then freezing them after that. If they are serious about developing relevant technologies, they need to rescind the freeze permanently, no excuses. They can't even use the very old, very worn, very boring and very tired "cost-cutting" excuse if part of the point is that promoting "green" technologies will bring new investment (i.e, money) into the sport.

Or, a compromise being that engines must be homologated at the start of the year, and no changes can be made through the season. Thus you get engine upgrades once per year rather than every other race.

If they want to limit performance they could say that the engine needs to be tested and can't exceed x bhp and x amount of torque while using x amount of fuel, for example. Hence the concentration of development will be on reliability and driveability and not just on the cars getting faster and faster which was the concern previously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Or, a compromise being that engines must be homologated at the start of the year, and no changes can be made through the season. Thus you get engine upgrades once per year rather than every other race.

If they want to limit performance they could say that the engine needs to be tested and can't exceed x bhp and x amount of torque while using x amount of fuel, for example. Hence the concentration of development will be on reliability and driveability and not just on the cars getting faster and faster which was the concern previously.

---

I don't see why they'd need to say the engine can't exceed a certain amount of bhp and torque, they might as well go for a spec engine then. If they decide the cars are too fast and need to slow them down for the next season, just adjust down the maximum permissible fuel flow and let the engine manufacturers deal with it.

You probably don't even need to mandate the fuel flow, just mandate a maximum fuel tank size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

You probably don't even need to mandate the fuel flow, just mandate a maximum fuel tank size.

---

Don't get me wrong, in the race that would be ideal, as it would allow different drivers to put their foot down or ease up at different parts of the race and make things more interesting, but it might be hard to manage for qualifying: do you make the cars run a certain number of laps and penalise those that don't, or go back to single lap qualifying and somehow measure the fuel that goes in, while ensuring the tank is completely drained before filling? I can't think of an obvious solution, so I (grudgingly) accept fuel flow meters might be the way to go.

EDIT: Thinking about it, fuel tank size was restricted in the mid-80s in the last few years of the turbo era, and also in Group C racing, anyone know how qualifying was dealt with then, was it completely unrestricted fuel usage?

Yes, you make a good point! I think back in the day they have qualifying special engines so that didn't really matter?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by call_me_andrew

Well Mercedes is owned by Diamler who builds this:

http://image.automobilemag.com/f/rev...rtwo+front.jpg

And Ferrari is owned by Fiat who builds this:

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/au...s/fiat_500.jpg

---

Sure...that's where the bug buks are coming from :) :)

PS I like that little 500 though. In red it looks splendid