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