Printable View
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