travelling through the univers, womb, communist romania. I was kind of busy. Why, what happened then?
Printable View
travelling through the univers, womb, communist romania. I was kind of busy. Why, what happened then?
Whilst I can see LdM's point its a bit undermined by the fact that Ferrari have run engines in F1 before that they would never have used in their roadcars, like small capacity V6's back in the 60s when Enzo refused to have anything on the road with less than a V12.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
4 cylinder turbos have been in F1 before, IIRC BMW and perhaps Porsche both used them to win championships in the early 80's. People weren't complaining about them then, except perhaps that they were too powerful...
Since Mercedes is also against the 4 cylinder engines, I wonder what would happen to all the Mercedes powered teams if Mercedes were to retire from F1Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
The simple answer is that they'd get other engines, from Cosworth if nothing else was available.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
They'll find another supplier like cosworth, or vw, Honda and Toyota who are rumoured to be making a comeback.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
But Mercedes is unlikely to pull out. They stayed despite the credit crunch which was a far larger problem. The engine regs will annoy them but not put them off. The switch from v10 to v8 really angered them but they still stayed.
I really don't see that happening. The fact that F1 used to run on 4 cyl engines does not mean that the actual car makers have to go for it. Especially if the car market they operate with does not provide use for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
Mercedes may choose to stay in F1 if it makes commercial sense for them otherwise I don't think we will see 4 cyl powered Benzs. Besides, why not stay with 6 or 8 cyl engines? I don't think it's that outrageous. Especially with all the regulations and limitations that all the F1 teams have to observe right now. How low should these budgets go?
I am not so sure the F1 circus can do without Mercedes and Ferrari. If they were to go, who would replace them?
In any case, only time will tell. We'll see what happens.
F1 engine manufacturers do gain new technologies from racing F1 engines, but I'm not sure that directly relevant to the number of cylinders an engine has.
Indeed, I would say that 4 cylinder engines are much more relevant to road car technology than 8, 10 or 12 cylinder engines are, given that the vast majority of cars on the road are powered by 4 cylinder engines.
It's a case of the need to wake up and smell the N02. Whilst I do not see any particular hardship in the next decade, oil is a finite resource. From the plastic bags you collect your shopping in, to the fuel needed to transport the goods to the supermarket - oil is consumed.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
Which do you suppose will ALWAYS be more economical - 4 or 8/10/12 cylinder motors?
NOw, how many people, globally, own and regularly use a fuel (oil) consuming vehicle?
If, by stipulating it's use in a sport and actively encourage the search for better economy via a sport, you can significantly reduce the global consumption, do you not think this is;
1. A good thing
&
2. Sensible?
I'm not sure whether you're aware that Mercedes is downsizing all its engines including for AMG, reducing capacity left right and centre and slapping turbochargers on them to improve efficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
There are plenty of turbo 4-cylinder Mercedes already available, in fact I don't think you can get an A or B-class without one.
The new engine regs for F1 are exactly in line with what Mercedes is doing anyway with their roadcars.
BTW Ferrari aren't going to pull out of F1 just because of some engine regs change, I think you're vastly overestimating the importance of these changes. F1 might need Ferrari but Ferrari needs F1 even more.
Maybe playing devils' advocate a bit as I'll be sad to see the demise of multi-cylinder engines, but Ferrari's first WDC was won with a 4-cylinder engine...
If the power level stays above 700hp then I don't care what engine they use. I just don't want the power of F1 to fall down to the 650hp they have been talking about.
Interesting points. However, Haug is still against 4 cyl engines in F1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
"Mercedes’ opinion is based on the fact that they have the most powerful engine on the F1 starting grid, as this tactical advantage might disappear once the new engines occur."
http://www.mibz.com/28586-ferrari-f1...-pathetic.html
Of course it is also true that nowdays 6 or 8 cylinder engines are not as bad as those used in the 70s or 80s. For that matter a 6 cylinder engine at times may be more gas efficient than a 4 cylinder engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Besides that, I hardly believe we should see F1, or for that matter any motor racing sport, from an enviromental friendly perspective. That's not the nature of motor racing. Not to mention that over the years the F1 engines have become cleaner and more reliable without compromising the original nature of the sport.
F1 has always been about high technology and high speeds.
And again, as I asked earlier, how low are we willing to go, with these cylinders? Are we going to see cars powered with one cylinder engines? If the environment and the oil consumption should be our focus, would not a one cylinder engine be more environmently friendly than a four cyl engine?
Let's also remember, as I mentioned, all the testing limitations, reduction of engines available to a team, etc, etc. All rules that I am sure are having a positive inpact on the environment.
Indeed, but your average Jo Public does not want to pay a fortune every 4 weeks for an engine rebuild...Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
....and this is where F1 needs to allign itself more for road car relevance, and the transfer of technology.
More efficiency = more speed. If they limited fuel usage the engineers would be compelled to develop more environmentally friendly and economical solutions, because they'd also be faster. No need to mandate KERS or 4-pots, because they'd get used anyway, or the engineers would come up with something even more beneficial.
The FIA (or whichever "working group" is responsible for framing the rules), by setting these restrictions in the rules (e.g. on KERS boost usage, engine architecture and so on) are actually holding back the progress of these technologies, not promoting them. Am I right in remembering that McLaren developed a form of energy recovery some time ago, only to see it promptly banned before it could race?
I think that all this eco-friendly f1 is nothing more than a PR thing. There's nothing ecological about f1 even if they build 0 emission cars. I wonder just what is the proportion between the emissions of everything involved in organizing f1 compared to the actual emissions of f1 cars or the fuel consumed to carry everything and everyone from one country to another or from one continent to another compared to the fuel consumed to drive those cars around the track.
In the future we will see electric cars powered by hydrogen cells in F1, as well as everywhere else. You may or may not like it but that's where we're eventually going and that's exactly the right thing to do if we think more than a few years ahead in time.
I'd recommend enjoying these 4 cyl petrol engines while you can, it's just a small step in the current direction of motor industry and it won't be the last by a longshot.
You can dream about bigger petrol engines all you want but it will never ever happen again so I kind of fail to see the point.
PR thing? How many times does it have to be said in this thread that no, the emission level of a single F1 race is not the issue; the issue is being one step ahead of technology and push it forward and yes, also to be seen as "green" from the outside, not to draw more fans but to show a modern and relevant mindset that's sustainable.
I'd say you enjoy petrol cars while you can instead of bitch and moaning about them being downsized, because in a decade there will be electric cars with hydrogen cells running. Which I'm looking forward to.
(I do agree that the tight regulations does nothing but hinder progress though, I would love to see something like limited fuel for the weekend and then let the teams solve it in whatever way they can.)
The carbon footprint is indeed huge, but then, look at the carbon emissions of having the luxury produce we all love in our supermarkets every day - flown in from every corner of the earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by eu
As I understand it, the FIA has, for some years now, offset the estimated or calculated CO2 emissions associated with F1.
Me too, but how to extract the Hydrogen without the need to use disproportunate amounts of fossil fuels? And we know what burning fossil fuels create, don't we? Catch 22.....Quote:
Originally Posted by maxter
Honda are working on this on their 'hydrogen island', using hydroelectric power to extract the hydrogen. Not everyone has an island handy though, do they.......?
Carbon credits are simply a way to make it look good while being bad for the planet .Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Limitting the amount of fuel used is something they all do as a matter of course anyway , as nobody wants to carry any more than they have to , as it costs lap time .
As has been said here , restrictions on which plant should be used should come naturally , with technology moving toward the engine most suited to the conditions .
Lose the wings entirely , and give them whatever engine they wish .
It'll slow them down , but it'll also show which drivers can drive .
You are right that hydrogen costs too much power to create .Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Ballard , the creator of the hydrogen fuel cell , suggested that the power be created by reactors when in over-production situations , basically every night .
We pay to dump power when it could be stored as potential energy in hydrogen .
It's dumb .
It's also really friggin dangerous ; too much so for the regular public .
Coal stations also have "spinning reserve", in that they need to be producing power even when it's not needed. However in the UK to a large extent this is used to reverse pump hydro-electric stations so they are ready for the next peak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
I fear this is the major problem, but of course you can say the same of petrol.Quote:
It's also really friggin dangerous ; too much so for the regular public .
If the hydrogen tank were to rupture, would the hydrogen react with oxygen without any catalyst and explode, or would there need to be an ignition source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Now, if every house in the UK had;
1. A wind turbine
2. A ground source heat pump
and
3. Solar panels, we could all potentially store our own energy, charge up our electric cars, heat and light our homes for free. Power stations would be required only to power streetlighting (which ought to be replaced with low energy consuming LED's) and public transport.
Now, is there a government party that currently exists with the testicles to push such legislation through?
Sorry, I'm just scratching my head wondering wtf my rambling has to do with F1...... :dozey:
Hydrogen does need an ignition source , but if that is provided , you produce water ......very , very violently .Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
I remember the science class experiment , where once you had the required ratio of oxygen to hydrogen in the metal flask , you had a very distinct ringing in your ears for several days .
I am currently building an off-grid house .
I am about to install 2.8kw of solar .
My research told me to stay away from ground-source heat pumps . They ulitize a compressor to extract the temperature variance , so , off-grid , you would need a lot of power , and that costs money .
Better to use solar thermal for heat , backed up by a non-fossil fuel source . That would be a wood stove , in my case , but better would be to use a digester to produce methane for back-up .
We're all full of it , and it should be a resource , rather than a waste , as methane is roughly ten times as bad as a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide .
Small wind can work in the countryside , but wind turbulence in a city would make it useless in most cases , due to cost .
And , large or small wind generation requires the use of a storage system , as the wind does not blow on demand .
And , the sun doesn't shine that way either . It inconveniently decides to rise and set each day , also making storage a must .
So , how do we relate this to F1 ?
First , we could drop the price for the venues if they got off the grid .
The additional press that Bernie could derive from such a move , potentially effecting a green change in all the countries that F1 visits would be astounding .
All the transport , short of the air travel , could be mandated as driven with non-fossil methane .
They'd soon realize that a factory with 500 employees would likely produce all the fuel they need for the season .
That could lead them to realize that the fuel they had left over could heat the factory as well .
And , that could lead them to realize that such a simple system could also be enlarged to neighbourhood , and then small town size .
Maybe then they'd see that all bergs , villages , towns , and cities already have most of the necessary infrastructure to retrofit methane capture into the game , making the pumping of any more fossil sourced natural gas cease completely , due to cost .
Now , I am sure you thought to yourself , when I suggested that Bernie drop the price for the venues , that it would never happen , and perhaps laughed , and rolled on the floor holding your belly .
If the venues holding races incorporated these standards , they would actually make more money .
They could also likely get more money from governments for support , as green initiatives are all the rage .
If you've got some guys that owe you money , and they keep whining about having none , you work out a way to have them make more , so they can afford to pay you more .
Well Ferrari and Mercedes dont really cater to the every day Joe :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Not to mention the "freeze" on all engine developementsQuote:
Originally Posted by V12
Well Mercedes is owned by Diamler who builds this:Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
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
Thats a fair attitude to have, why compromise the sport?Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
The reason is that the biggest problem F1 faces today is that it lacks cash. Many of the mid- and back of the grid teams are up for sale. Everyone bar the top 3 lacks sponsors. Many of the car makers have left and taken their money with them, its pretty clear that for most car makers the environment is THE priority in terms of product right now.
Honda and Toyota barely have any sports cars left in their product line-up but plenty of hybrids. BMW are introducing efficient dynamics across their entire range. All the German makers are downsizing engines and slapping turbos on them to keep the power and torque but slash emissions and consumption. Nissan/Renault are going electric. FIAT are going for simple but effective small capacity engines. Even Ferrari are talking about slashing weight and cutting engine capacity to offer the same speed but cleaner while Porsche are talking hybrids.
So why should these car makers want to return to a sport which is all about more power obtained through burning more fuel? How does that fit into their brand realignment?
And its not just carmakers, plenty of other brands are desperate to appear green.
F1 needs to reinvent itself to get back these sponsors, to appear green to look as if its part of the solution by being the test ground for new green technologies like KERS. Getting 4 cylinder turbos is all part of this process. Otherwise it just looks like the sport is part of the environmental problem.
If you want F1 to keep its big V8s then find an alternative cash source that doesn't rely on sponsorship...
Is that going to remain after the new regs come in?Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
If so, I think that closes the book for me - officially a PR exercise and nothing more.
Here's hoping not though.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by billiaml
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.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
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?!
Sure...that's where the bug buks are coming from :) :)Quote:
Originally Posted by call_me_andrew
PS I like that little 500 though. In red it looks splendid