Results 1 to 10 of 44
Threaded View
-
Today, 13:47 #40Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Greenwich, London UK
- Posts
- 3,858
- Like
- 25
- Liked 841 Times in 695 Posts
That is one of the suggestions presented to the FIA. Someone worked out a 36:64 split instead of the current 50:50 split. Unfortunately, a battery-related change would result in a sizeable drop in overall speed, which would move the performance of F1 cars towards that of the F2 cars, which would make us ask what progress do these 2026 regulations bring to modern-day F1. Slower F1 is not progress.
But then, the FIA have a bigger issue relating to safety and the risk of fatality from the closing speed differential between the cars with a good battery charge and those that have run out of battery. On tracks lined with unforgivable armco barriers, such as the street circuits, a Bearman-like situation may have a much more serious outcome. The question of why the battery is unable to provide power over a full lap comes about again.
The FIA's dilemma is that increasing fuel flow to increase ICE power output and reducing battery power dependency defeats two of their aspirations in this regulation. The biofuel is stupendously expensive; increased fuel flow would increase teams' spending. It would also increase the carbon footprint for this season.
Not mentioned much is the issue of AI software deciding to boost power on behalf of the drivers. The machine learning software are quite immature in their learning so they make poor decisions, which threaten the safety of drivers or sap performance in a crippling way.
It would be better in 2027, at ther moment it is looking like a fancy dogs diner.Last edited by Nitrodaze; Today at 13:56.
Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
William Shakespeare



Reply With Quote
Norris reveals how McLaren managed to up its game in Suzuka following a tough start to the season. McLaren arrived at Suzuka simply relieved to have both cars on the grid after a turbulent build up...
Formula 1: Articles & News...