Four-cylinder engines in F1 'pathetic'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

Nothing beats the old 3.5V12 Ferrari but those days are gone....

---

Which is exactly why I would like to see the return of V10's, V12's etc and not see pissy 4 potter enter F1!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

You sure about that?
Today's cars are almost exclusively built on a uni-body frame, elimniating the need for a steel chassis that weighs a ton.
Also, crash protection in modern cars is achieved largely by designing the front and rear to "crumple" instead of adding steel which was the thought 20 years ago.
Engines today are generally smaller and lighter too.

---

Yes I am sure. Take a look at what a MK1 Golf GTI weighed in the 70's & 80's and look at what a MK6 Golf GTI weighs today. Its increased from 790 KG's to just over 1300 KG's. That a huge jump.

That's just one example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

I want F1 teams to be given a fixed amount of energy per race and given the freedom to exploit it however they wish. Petrol, diesel, electric, whatever works for them. If that means supplementing it with renewable or recovered energy so be it. Stick on a bloody hydroelectric plant powered by the driver's sweat if that's the most efficient.

F1 rules are way too restrictive. We'll never ever see innovation like fans, skirts or 6 wheels under the current regime.

---

Absolutely agree. With more variation you will see more passing and different race stratergies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

I want F1 teams to be given a fixed amount of energy per race and given the freedom to exploit it however they wish. Petrol, diesel, electric, whatever works for them. If that means supplementing it with renewable or recovered energy so be it. Stick on a bloody hydroelectric plant powered by the driver's sweat if that's the most efficient.

F1 rules are way too restrictive. We'll never ever see innovation like fans, skirts or 6 wheels under the current regime.

---

This would lead to enormous costs and huge differences between engine manufacturers and would kill F1 in a few years. Too expensive and too "free" on this day and age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

This would lead to enormous costs and huge differences between engine manufacturers and would kill F1 in a few years. Too expensive and too "free" on this day and age.

---

It worked for 50 years, through boom and through bust. In fact there's an argument for the opposite view: that manufacturers like Toyota pulled out precisely because they weren't able to showcase their innovation in regenerative technology.

There have been many examples of series trying to cut costs and going down the 'spec' route, this may work for a short period of time and achieve the lower costs, but ultimately most manufacturers aren't interested in competing in a spec series. They want to show that they are the best, and if they can't, they'll go!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

There have been many examples of series trying to cut costs and going down the 'spec' route, this may work for a short period of time and achieve the lower costs, but ultimately most manufacturers aren't interested in competing in a spec series. They want to show that they are the best, and if they can't, they'll go!

---

Don't know if I buy that. Proving you're the best is difficult and expensive. Giving the impression that you're the best to people who can't tell the difference is much cheaper, and 90% as effective.

although I personally like the turbo-V4 format, I really think the best engine solution that will suit everyone is to open up the engine rules slightly and allow for different engine classes, but also increase weigth based on engine class.

For example, cars fitted with 1.6L turbo-V4s could have a smaller minimum weight than say a car with 2.5L V10 engine or something that would be more powerful. This would raise an interesting question; what's the best strategy? more power but heavier car? or less power but lighter car? The rules could be set so every type of engine had a similar power to weight ratio.

unfortunatly, this makes sense for everyone, so it will never happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

Don't know if I buy that. Proving you're the best is difficult and expensive. Giving the impression that you're the best to people who can't tell the difference is much cheaper, and 90% as effective.

---

That may well be very true and I certainly don't want F1 to become FIA world sportscars mrkII with massive swings between booms and terrible, terrible lows.

That said F1 needs something special to keep the best engineers etc. Newey keeps making noises about quitting to go build boats (and I doubt he's alone) because the rules give limited room for imagination. This is especially true on the engine front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

It worked for 50 years, through boom and through bust. In fact there's an argument for the opposite view: that manufacturers like Toyota pulled out precisely because they weren't able to showcase their innovation in regenerative technology.

---

Sure it worked but the world has changed. F1 is competing in a world where it is more and more difficult to get people's attention and keep them interested since they've so many leisure activities to choose from. That's why the playing field in F1 must be/is levelled so that it is very difficult to dominate and get an edge over others. It must be exciting and dominance of one team or engine manufacturer (which your rules would more likely to lead into) would be very bad for F1 since nobody wants to watch Jenson Button going around the track a minute ahead of everybody even if the car is cool and advanced. They'll turn the channel or do something else, believe me.