Looks like F1 returning to turbos !
05 December 2010, 12:12 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is it up there on the moral high ground? Nice view? 
I think if you do a bit of reading in NSR from the last few months you will find out the reasons for the 'patting each other on the back' about the comment.
I make no excuses for liking F1 yet can understand perfectly why others don't, but equally I don't understand the need for posting such a negative comment about a sport the guy obviously dones't like or understand. We can't go back to the looney turbo engines of the 1980s as with modern design the cornering speeds would be silly and uber dangerous.
I think if you do a bit of reading in NSR from the last few months you will find out the reasons for the 'patting each other on the back' about the comment.
I make no excuses for liking F1 yet can understand perfectly why others don't, but equally I don't understand the need for posting such a negative comment about a sport the guy obviously dones't like or understand. We can't go back to the looney turbo engines of the 1980s as with modern design the cornering speeds would be silly and uber dangerous.
Les
05 December 2010, 12:17 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I kind of wish F1 would take a more subtle approach to restricting power output, instead of making it boring, forcing everyone to use 1.6 4-bangers, with turbos, 10,000 RPM limits, x amount of valves, this and that material etc.
What about uber-weeny fuel limits per race?
Let the teams decide what engine is best suited.
Should promote competing designs and more excitement.
What about uber-weeny fuel limits per race?
Let the teams decide what engine is best suited.
Should promote competing designs and more excitement.
Les
05 December 2010, 12:31 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm, cost!
It would cripple several teams either with the development costs, or by the amount they would have to pay someone to have the kit to make them competitive. Plus the racing would be worse as some teams would produce great systems and be seconds a lap faster. So, if you want to make F1 better (even though you hate it anyway), try to understand the implications of your suggestions. Infact, the only reason i think you don't like F1 is because you don't actually understand it.
It would cripple several teams either with the development costs, or by the amount they would have to pay someone to have the kit to make them competitive. Plus the racing would be worse as some teams would produce great systems and be seconds a lap faster. So, if you want to make F1 better (even though you hate it anyway), try to understand the implications of your suggestions. Infact, the only reason i think you don't like F1 is because you don't actually understand it.
One team faster that the others? - Criminal!
06 December 2010, 12:54 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I kind of wish F1 would take a more subtle approach to restricting power output, instead of making it boring, forcing everyone to use 1.6 4-bangers, with turbos, 10,000 RPM limits, x amount of valves, this and that material etc.
What about uber-weeny fuel limits per race?
Let the teams decide what engine is best suited.
Should promote competing designs and more excitement.
What about uber-weeny fuel limits per race?
Let the teams decide what engine is best suited.
Should promote competing designs and more excitement.
Les
06 December 2010, 01:26 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 2,760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm, cost!
It would cripple several teams either with the development costs, or by the amount they would have to pay someone to have the kit to make them competitive. Plus the racing would be worse as some teams would produce great systems and be seconds a lap faster.
It would cripple several teams either with the development costs, or by the amount they would have to pay someone to have the kit to make them competitive. Plus the racing would be worse as some teams would produce great systems and be seconds a lap faster.
Isn't this exactly how Formula 1 is at the moment?
06 December 2010, 01:27 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
600hp from engine
150hp from kers
So overall, the cars will be slower than they are now which is bl**dy crzy if you ask me.
And don't get me started on the 10,000rpm rev limit.
06 December 2010, 04:22 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engine change is only a small part of what they are doing and for all you guys banging on about aero etc, there are major changes on that front as well.
It looks like they are removing a huge amount of aero generated downforce with the new engines and allowing the teams to use ground effect for grip.
This means that there will be much less "dirty" air to allow cars to follow much closer in corners
Jason
It looks like they are removing a huge amount of aero generated downforce with the new engines and allowing the teams to use ground effect for grip.
This means that there will be much less "dirty" air to allow cars to follow much closer in corners
Jason
07 December 2010, 11:32 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I kind of wish F1 would take a more subtle approach to restricting power output, instead of making it boring, forcing everyone to use 1.6 4-bangers, with turbos, 10,000 RPM limits, x amount of valves, this and that material etc.
What about uber-weeny fuel limits per race?
Let the teams decide what engine is best suited.
Should promote competing designs and more excitement.
What about uber-weeny fuel limits per race?
Let the teams decide what engine is best suited.
Should promote competing designs and more excitement.
If you want to whinge then have a go at the rules which cause such tight restrictions and need an enlightened look to change them for the better all round.
Les
14 December 2010, 10:09 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 December 2010, 11:37 AM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they develop turbos to eliminate lag that would be a plus for road car development.
If they bin the aerodynamic downforce as well then they would have to develop better suspension which is also good for road use-as F1 was intended to do in in all respects in the first place anyway.
Les
14 December 2010, 03:40 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What on earth do you think the teams are doing between and during races if not to seek new ways to improve their car's performance in any possible way. This is regarded as the ultimate form of racing car development inside the stated rules.
If you want to whinge then have a go at the rules which cause such tight restrictions and need an enlightened look to change them for the better all round.
Les
If you want to whinge then have a go at the rules which cause such tight restrictions and need an enlightened look to change them for the better all round.
Les
Why make 4 bangers mandatory FFS?
Smarter rules could keep cost and power down but still encourage innovation of technical variety.
How about a budget cap or a personal cap?
You could keep power down with say an engine weight limit, or boost limit, or fuel limit, but still leave them free to choose engine format.
14 December 2010, 03:49 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes seems a bit strange. If they limit the fuel flow then further development is a waste of time once they have reached the ultimate power they can get out of the max fuel available.
If they develop turbos to eliminate lag that would be a plus for road car development.
If they bin the aerodynamic downforce as well then they would have to develop better suspension which is also good for road use-as F1 was intended to do in in all respects in the first place anyway.
Les
If they develop turbos to eliminate lag that would be a plus for road car development.
If they bin the aerodynamic downforce as well then they would have to develop better suspension which is also good for road use-as F1 was intended to do in in all respects in the first place anyway.
Les
Making a performance engine which is very fuel efficient is a big challenge.
I'd be very interested to see the solutions if F1 cars had tiny fuel allowances per race.
As mentioned cost would be one issue though, it would seem that you can always spend $$$$ to get 0.01% more efficiency, but of course you get diminishing returns.
I'd expect some very high tech ignition and valving systems, turbos, exhaust gas recirculation, regenerative braking etc.
Maybe you could make the fuel allowance so tiny that teams have to ditch aero to reduce drag?
14 December 2010, 09:53 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 December 2010, 12:57 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel efficiency and engine power/torque curves are two different things (although they do effect each other).
Making a performance engine which is very fuel efficient is a big challenge.
I'd be very interested to see the solutions if F1 cars had tiny fuel allowances per race.
As mentioned cost would be one issue though, it would seem that you can always spend $$$$ to get 0.01% more efficiency, but of course you get diminishing returns.
I'd expect some very high tech ignition and valving systems, turbos, exhaust gas recirculation, regenerative braking etc.
Maybe you could make the fuel allowance so tiny that teams have to ditch aero to reduce drag?
Making a performance engine which is very fuel efficient is a big challenge.
I'd be very interested to see the solutions if F1 cars had tiny fuel allowances per race.
As mentioned cost would be one issue though, it would seem that you can always spend $$$$ to get 0.01% more efficiency, but of course you get diminishing returns.
I'd expect some very high tech ignition and valving systems, turbos, exhaust gas recirculation, regenerative braking etc.
Maybe you could make the fuel allowance so tiny that teams have to ditch aero to reduce drag?
I dont think a low fuel allowance would tempt them to ditch the aero, they could as in the F duct reduce the angle of attack of the wings not to stall the wing as is incorrectly said by the commentators, but to reduce the generated negative lift thus reducing the drag. Stalling the wing would increase drag to a very high value. As far as the front wing is concerned the only effective method is to mechanically move the wing to reduce the angle of attack and hence as above decrease the generated negative lift.
I still think that banning aerofoils completely would force them to design proper suspension instead of restricting the suspension movement to virtually zero in order to maintain the preset geometry. The wings have no advantage as far as road car development is concerned, but better suspension has of course. Increasing turbocharging effectiveness would be sensible development too.
Needs a bit of constructive thought by those who set the regulations.
How does exhaust gas recirculation work?
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM