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.
Printable View
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?