|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
29 Dec 2010, 11:29 (Ref:2809162) | #76 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
I wouldn't get rid of pit-stops, to be honest.
Just the mandatory compound change really needs to go. |
|
|
29 Dec 2010, 13:15 (Ref:2809184) | #77 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
It should be mentioned that in your first scenario it appears that one car simply outclasses another one and hence the overtaking manoeuvre you describe will occur rarely. That shouldn't and won't be the consequence of having performance differentials caused by regulatory frameworks lacking an absolute solution. The consequence will be (relative) changing of paces throughout the entire race, just it used to happen in the turbo era when fuel consumption was limited and in 2005 when tyre changes were banned. One should also recognize that the ban on mid-race refuelling is thereby a step in the right direction. The problem Formula 1 faces is the impossibility to attain the performance differential required for a successful overtaking manoeuvre. With the 2009 aero regulations the OWG aimed for a performance differential of 1 to 1,5 second(s) being enough for an overtaking manoeuvre. But if an one second delay is enough to make a driver start from the seventh instead of second starting row, no successful aero change will make overtaking to happen frequently. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
29 Dec 2010, 13:38 (Ref:2809193) | #78 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Does this statement only apply to aero changes that are likely to happen only in F1? There are many examples of aero or aero changes that do actually make overtaking much easier. There are many examples where aero isn't even a factor.
|
|
|
29 Dec 2010, 13:43 (Ref:2809197) | #79 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
My statement doesn't apply to aero not being a factor or which artificially facilitate overtake (by using aero that actually generate lift instead of downforce).
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
29 Dec 2010, 21:10 (Ref:2809291) | #80 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,107
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
3 Jan 2011, 10:37 (Ref:2810429) | #81 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Luca is unhappy......again.
President Luca di Montezemolo said: "We're not going to build four-cylinder engines for our road cars. A four-cylinder engine seems a bit weak for the pinnacle of motorsport. Why could not agree on a turbo V6? If there is the slightest possibility of delaying the four-cylinder, I'll try to get it. I sense a possibility and we need to drive to do it. " |
|
|
3 Jan 2011, 12:12 (Ref:2810466) | #82 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 179
|
Ahhh, I could grow to like this Luca fellow.
If we have a set standard fuel flow supply system like they are talking about why do we have to set any other engine parameters apart from engine weight? Think about it, it's all about engineering the most fuel efficient engine possible, (I said efficient not conservative), if someone wanted to build a 6 litre V16 revving at 7000rpm and it was happy being fed the fuel allowed and the engine was a competitive weight so be it. Someone else may think a 3 cylinder 1500cc twin inter-cooled turbo revving at 25,000rpm may be a winner, if the engine mass is not underweight and its happy with the fuel flow system and you think its a winner go for it. What could be more relevant to road cars than this? Why do we need to regulate down to the last nut and bolt, innovation is what F1 is meant to be all about. |
||
|
3 Jan 2011, 15:02 (Ref:2810528) | #83 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,305
|
Why not allow;
- V6 turbo 1.4L - Straight 4 turbo 1.6L |
||
|
3 Jan 2011, 15:36 (Ref:2810535) | #84 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Because even I know that an inline 4 will be just as powerful and will use less fuel than a V6.
I've no doubt that Luca will want everyone to use V6's. Last edited by Marbot; 3 Jan 2011 at 15:42. |
|
|
3 Jan 2011, 15:44 (Ref:2810538) | #85 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
I'd consider allowing both V6 and inline four units at 1600cc, with different rev limits a la Super 2000 touring cars. You could even dyno test the engines. The issue is V6 engines are more theatrical for F1, but they are rarely used at that sort of size - the only 1600cc V6 car I can think of is the early 90s Mitsubishi lump that got stuck in the Lancer and might be plodding around in a few Protons?
I see advantages to both V6s (show, prestige manufacturers) and I4s (road relevancy) exclusively; I suppose allowing both is a reasonable compromise. |
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
3 Jan 2011, 16:10 (Ref:2810547) | #86 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
To add to this, Yamaha's flat plane crank I4 sounds awesome!!!! |
||
|
4 Jan 2011, 08:12 (Ref:2810851) | #87 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
Until 2006 we saw Bridgestone and Michelin competitors having (relative) paces throughout the entire race, particularly during the Hungarian Grand Prix. However, from 2007 all competitors are on the same tyres. Since then there were no major differences in tyre wear and hence pace, other than artificially created by the mandatory compound change. Some teams and drivers had no troubles with adopting to the new tyres (as the new tyres already suited them), some had to adopt and some were really struggling. But those struggling with the adaptation were not to be overtaken, because they were already behind. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
4 Jan 2011, 08:37 (Ref:2810863) | #88 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
4 Jan 2011, 10:19 (Ref:2810904) | #89 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
It wouldn't be any more a case of two classes than the situation in Super 2000 with multiple configurations and fuels permitted, the option of 1000cc 4-cyl or 1200cc 2-cyl in Superbikes, or F1 in 1988 when both 1500cc turbo and 3500cc naturally aspirated engines were permitted.
|
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
4 Jan 2011, 10:38 (Ref:2810916) | #90 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
4 Jan 2011, 17:13 (Ref:2811084) | #91 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,305
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
4 Jan 2011, 18:08 (Ref:2811104) | #92 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 555
|
I'm stoked on the the new rules proposal. I haven't said that regarding F1 since...never. I've only been watching since '94 though.
And to Mr. Montezemolo; If you want to race cars with engines more akin to the architecture to those of your road cars there is always LeMans. Who wouldn't love to see a Ferrari proto again? |
|
|
4 Jan 2011, 18:55 (Ref:2811129) | #93 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
4 Jan 2011, 22:42 (Ref:2811240) | #94 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
This article describing the changes to the cars in 1998 prvides an insight into design compromise.
http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00289.html Note the commentd wrt front wings. |
|
|
5 Jan 2011, 19:11 (Ref:2811596) | #95 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,978
|
How about completely free engines and no wings or ground-effect? The need for power would be limited by the ability to transmit it to the road. Thus the preferred engine would (I would expect) be fairly large capacity, torquey and relatively slow revving. Throw in some restrictions on exotic materials, and a fuel limit if you must.
As others have said, the current penchant for regulating everything down to the last molecule results in a single solution to the problem of making the fastest car. More freedom of rules opens up the possibility of multiple solutions. Taking the above proposal, one team might go for power, giving them speed on the straight at the expense of tyre wear and driveability. Another team might opt for a nimbler car that can look after it's tyres, at the expense of a bit of straight-line speed. |
||
|
5 Jan 2011, 19:43 (Ref:2811605) | #96 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Maybe in an ideal world, but some would be loath to throw their wind tunnels on the scrap heap.
And there's many that would say it's only the aerodynamics that keep F1 at the pinnacle. |
|
|
5 Jan 2011, 19:57 (Ref:2811606) | #97 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
Aerodynamics would still be an important factor, but for other purposes. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
5 Jan 2011, 20:25 (Ref:2811617) | #98 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
"completely free engines" ?
|
|
|
5 Jan 2011, 21:04 (Ref:2811634) | #99 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
Yeah, could build a nice car with off the shelf parts, just make sure the donor vehicle is a Eurofighter ...
|
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
6 Jan 2011, 08:19 (Ref:2811792) | #100 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jos "Dead Loss" Verstappen & Enrique "Not Piquet" Bernoldi | I Ate Yoko Ono | Formula One | 16 | 9 Oct 2001 14:44 |