Printable View
The rev limit was brought in to equalize engine performance and reliability.Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
At that time Ferrari were revving as high as BMW, Mercedes or Honda and were bullet proof, while the others were exploding every 2nd race. So we have got a rev limitation which made the Mercedes bullet proof too.
:D I'd be happy to see them come back to F1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
I'd love to see engine development come back into F1. I'm all for cutting costs but the engine freeze thing is stupid, you might as well just have a standard engine if they are going down that route.
Make the rules strict, i.e. you can only use certain materials, and of course only a certain number of engines per year, but other than that lets have a proper engine battle, rather than the secret one we have now where engines are modified for 'reliability' which just so happens to give them more power!
Moveable wings and KERS next year and "green" engines in 2013
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/9275796.stm
Enzo smiles in his grave ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Hmm, plenty of things not to like, some standardised parts, likelihood that KERS will remain as a power and time-limited push to pass device rather than left for teams to use as much as they want, when they want.
But I'd forgive all of that, ALL OF IT, if it just meant we got rid of the bloody engine freeze. But judging by posts here and given the FIA's recent form, I guess any relief from it will only be temporary :(
I've no problem with the "green" stuff per se to be honest at least from a real technology standpoint (silly gimmicks like the Honda earth car and the green bands on the tyres can go take a running jump though).
More efficiency = more speed, and that efficiency needs fresh thinking and cutting edge technology to be achieved so there's no reason why it can't fit neatly into F1's ethos from both a technological and competition standpoint. The problem will be, as always with the FIA, not necessarily the idea, but the execution.
In an ideal world the engine rules would limit the amount of energy used....and pretty much not a lot else. Nothing on engine configuration, size etc. And then let some of the world's most inventive and cleverest people loose on the problem, and see what they come up with. That would be interesting for us fans AND maybe make a difference to the world's energy problem.
However the FIA's plan of babying all teams through it side-by-side, little step at a time, isn't really going to achieve much in the grand scheme of things. I read somewhere that all F1 cars use the same amount of fuel in an entire season as a single long-haul jumbo jet flight. The real (potential) benefits to going "green" are in R&D and technology filtering down. Mostly-standardised (and maybe frozen) engines and heavily neutered KERS units won't achieve that, not nearly as much anyway.
If they have KERS, Push to Pass is in full effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
The single dominant airbox was banned for the 1976 season, turbos didn't arrive properly until the Renaul RS01 "teapot" and wouldn't win a GP until the 1979 French GP, with Jean-Pierre Jabouille as the driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateDanGTR
Jabouille and Villeneuve going at it in that GP is still in my opinion the single greatest dogfight ever in any F1 race. Youtube it NOW.
Arnoux and Villeneuve, you mean. Jabouille was way in front of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
How is a 4 cylinder Turbo higher tech than what they have now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Krogshöj
Before you answer remember that 4 cyl Turbos were used in F1 back in the 1980's
Green???Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
Didn't the Europeans get the Memo?
Awful really. I hope for something like turning the KERS up and down like turbo boost pressure in the 1980's depending on the situation of the driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by bblocker68
You are of course quite quite correct good sir. I consider my nibble-pibblies thoroughly vanquished.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
They arealdy have push-to-pass. The difference between F1 push-to-pass and Champ Car push-to-pass is that when an F1 team uses push-to-pass, it is not broadcast with the TV telemtry. It's not really a gimmick as long as it's kept secret.Quote:
Originally Posted by bblocker68
Tell me something. What expereince did any of the engine suppliers have with V10s when they first entered the sport? Bugger all, that's what.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Ferrari have been making racing engines for 60+ years. They'll figure it out.
I don't really mind the smaller turbos. Over the years around various forms of motorsport I've learned one thing... 800 HP in just about any form may sound different, but it still sounds like 800 HP.
KERS in the last configuration sucked IMHO. If they are going to use it allow the teams to have more "boost" time... much more... and simply put a limit on the maximum increase in power. That way rather than a constant "push to pass or defend" type thing it may affect starting fuel load, or *gasp* actually save some fuel and make the sport a little "greener". Unless all cars have it, it screws with the race too much.
The idea of "green" in racing turns me and many others off big time.
A large percentage of the population(in some countries the majority) view Man-Made Global warming as a scam.
Many who do buy into it realize that F1 is such an insignificant part of it that it doesn't matter and all the "green" hype is just $$$ spent on window dressing.
Like 20% or so?! (90% of them US republicans)Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Long live the ignorance! :D
Is the pollution (you know, the one we can actually see and feel in larger citis) a scam as well? And the fact that we are running out of oil?
I think SGWilko already hit the nail on the head in this thread.
I do think that engine freeze and such restrictions is kind of counterproductive though. It would be really nice to see the teams trying different solutions and thus really pushing the technological boundaries, though I understand trying to reduce costs are always an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Because truth must be determined by a democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
But , truth in my and your democracy , is furnished by the aristocracy .Quote:
Originally Posted by call_me_andrew
I don't mind little engines , as long as the go fast .
I don't like a rev limit , as that won't make them fast .
And , I don't like a limit , unless it is one engine per race (twenty for a twenty race season) .
Moveable wings and KERS next year and "green" engines in 2013
They'll need the KERS to make up for the turbo lag...
I'm all for innovation, but 700hp from a 1.6l? The turbo will need to be bigger than the engine block.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Actually less people in the UK believe in Man made Global warming than in the US.
30% in the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...f-climate-poll
50% in the USA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-change-threat
So please take your baseless, anti-US bias someplace else
They were getting 1300hp in qualifying trim out of similar engines in the '80's. 700hp will be a walk in the park.Quote:
Originally Posted by PitMarshal
They were getting 1200 at a push - from an engine you would put in the bin after 3 laps....Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
Remember, today's engines must last a minimum of 2 races, plus all the practice and qually sessions. I doubt it is quite a walk in the park.
Turbo lag isn't something you worry about these days, that's old school turbos.
It would be good idea, IMO if when they bring in the new regs they also put up the number of allowed engines, preferably to one per race in order to allow more experimentation to get the engines right, especially since testing is not allowed.
Ha, tell that Ford! My d!seasel S-Max has terrible turbo lag....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Problem is KERS isn't a device that affects the durability of the car whereas you turn up and down the wick to compromise the engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
Well, I don't know - the more you demand from KERS, the more you stress the three main components, and anything under stress can fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
Difference with KERS is it gives energy without - technically - reducing vehicle performance, as it harvests energy that would otherwise go to waste.
With a turbo, aside from increasing stress on the engine, your fuel consumption rockets when the wick is turned up......
I was talking about a global figure (and specified a US percentage out of the global figure), so no need to involve the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I don't care which country you choose. A sizable percentage is turned off by the whole "green" marketing movement and their numbers are growing. You can agree with the issue or not I am just stating a fact.
So you're bringing your stuff into the F1 forum as well. Keep it at chit chat, please, it's easier to ignore there. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I understand that "form follows function" and all that jazz, but along with return of the roll hoop, if we could also go back to noses that aren't high in the air... I'd be a totally happy camper (in the aesthetics area).Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateDanGTR
As for the move to 4 cylinder turbos, I prefer that to the normally aspirated V8's they have now. I never cared for the V-10's (better known as truck engines in this country), but loved the V-12's (more closely associated with true exotic cars). To me a V-8 is just another engine type... no big deal... and absolutely nothing "exotic" about the basic configuration. Even though the turbo has been around for decades, it does have a bit more flair with the general public. Sort of like when you attach the words "magnum" to a firearm caliber: "Oh man! That's a .44 Magnum!!!" :eek: If nothing else, it could be a good marketing tool for those who don't follow F1 (or the motor car industry) as closely as many here do.
What I'd really like to see is for the FIA to allow the engine producers to have the freedom to choose any 4 cylinder configuration that they see fit to use: inline, flat, boxer, single turbo, twin turbo... whatever! But I know that's not going to happen. Oh well... I'll just file that dream into the same slot as the one where I'm sitting on a beach in Saint-Tropez with Charlotte Casiraghi. :s mokin:
I really can't see that 700hp from a 1.6 liter (engineered) racing engine should be such a big deal. They will have to last for a couple of races. But given that it's nothing to see 2.0 liter turbo street engines that put out 500hp+ and can go for 30K-40K miles, 700hp from an "advanced" F1 engine of similar size isn't all that amazing. At 900hp+ and lasting for an extended time (2-3 races), yeah, that would make me say :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by PitMarshal
Jeez,Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
Forget the whole "man-made global warming" argument.
Is it smart for F1 to push an ideal that turns off a sizable chunk of the market?
But turning the KERS boost up and down would still be a strategic matter, like storing it for a late race attack on the leaders, or using it to gradually extend a lead, whereas right now it's simply more of an overtake button which heavily restricts the change in the dynamics of a grand prix that it otherwise could have, and does not potentially award driver strategy with its implementation remotely as much.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
Let's assume they are making 750hp now. In a 2.4L engine, that's 312.5 horsepower per liter. Scaling that to a 1.6L engine, that's exactly 500 horsepower. For every atmosphere of boost, an engine's power output increses by a factor of itself. At half at atmosphere of boost, the engine is back to producing 750 horsepower.Quote:
Originally Posted by PitMarshal
Of course that is grossly oversimplified. This is ignoring variables such as bore diameter, stroke length, valve diameter, compression ratios, etc.
As to the matter of lag, half of an atmosphere shouldn't cause significant lag. However, the ancient 1980's engines used multiple turbochargers where a low pressure turbo would feed into a high pressure turbo to steady the influence of lag. A more modern solution would be a variable gemoetry turbo, but then reliablility comes into question.
Using the figures from above, this hypothetical 1.6L turbo engine at full throttle would consume as much fuel as the current 2.4L engine at full throttle. The difference is that under light loads the 1.6L turbo engine consumes as much fuel as a 1.6L NA engine, and the 2.4L NA engine consumes as much as a 2.4L NA engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
I hate to quote my own blog, but I'll do it anyway:Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Quote:
A few years back I recall reading a shareholder proposal submitted to Ford Motor Company asking that the company no longer devote resources to researching alternative fuels or high efficiency engines because the shareholder in question believed global warming to be a hoax. The board of directors responded with a statement about what benefits the research could have for future company products regardless of the effects of climate change. Here’s a simpler way to phrase that: whether global warming is real or imagined, there’s a way to profit from it.
Are we going to see V6 engines with a wide V angle?
They need room to throw in that turbo somewhere.
This seems like more and more....BACK TO DEH FUTAH!
As a follow up to this topic, LdM recently gave a interview where he strongly disagrees with the introduction of a 4 cylinder engine in F1. LdM point is that for Ferrari it would be pointless getting involved in such venture since no Ferrari would be ever produced with a cylinder engine. Obviously LdM is looking for support among the other teams and he found on so far, and that would be Mercedes. I thing Haug's motivation would be the same as LdM's.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
http://www.motorsport.com/news/artic...D=396838&FS=F1
I for one am against such a small engine. I know that F1 needs to adapt itself to the tough economical times but again a F1 car with a 4 cylinder engine....well it's not a F1 car. There are plenty of other series where racing teams can use those kind of engines. Forcing F1 cars to adopt a 4 cyl. engine is not F1. What's going to be next? A 3 cyl. engine car and then 2 and then 1 just in name of cutting down expenses and gas consumption? I see 3 probable endings:
1. A breakaway series.
2. No 4 cyl. engine F1 cars
3. No Ferrari, Mercedes and probably some other team.
I know some of you would love to see a F1 without Ferrari but remember, Ferrari will not disappear from the racing world. It would reappear somewhere else and they would take with them a share of the F1 public and revenue, that's why I am pretty confident we wont see any 4 cyl. engines in F1.
Certainly it would be interesting to see how things will unfold.
And where did you spend the 1980's?