|
TerzoNeil
139 posts
72 months
|
to me F1 means
no driver aids, max downforce, max bhp from either v8' or v10's or v8 turbo's or mad v12 era we had
and bloomin tyres that work and dont go off after 10-20 laps
bring back refuelling
|
|
|
hiccy
662 posts
81 months
|
Fire99 said: I'm not against a small capacity turbo configuration in principal. I remember the 80's and they were great times for F1. However, the similarities end with the basic engine configuration (small capacity+turbo)
They will be only 650bhp (with another 100hp being available with the energy recovery systems and not 100% of the time)
So they will be even further underpowered in relation to the strength of the aero / grip / brakes.
This really will be F1 'lite'
Edit - 80's cars at their 'grenade' best had probably around 1300-1400bhp and more often nearer 1000bhp at their best. 80's cars pushed the limits of technology at the time, the BMW engines were running high levels of toluene in the fuel and could push out over 1300bhp for qualifying but after that they were junk. Pushing the edge of technology costs an awful lot of money which isn't in line with current economics. I guess what the 2014 regulations do is fix the development of the petrol engine and encourage development in the energy recovery and electric power side which is probably more relevant to the 21st century. Also note that there are signifcant restrictions to the aerodynamics being brought in at the same time with a reduction of front wing width and complexity and limitations to the rear diffuser. I'd still like them to sounds like BRM V16's though 
|
|
|
Mr_Thyroid
863 posts
96 months
|
I can't wait 'til F1 goes electric. It will enhance spectator experience and make it more family friendly. Just imagine for a moment being able to hear the tyres work and possibly even the aerodynamics without some monstrous Luddite screaming in your ear.
|
|
|
HeatonNorris
1,649 posts
17 months
|
Puddenchucker said: I think your memory must be a little fuzzy as from 1989 turbos were banned in F1.
However, the races in the late 80s were more "epic" because there was much less reliance (and understanding of) aerodynamics and electronics to keep the cars on the road, rather than what engine was fitted. (IMHO) That's what I meant. The decades fly by as you get old...
|
|
|
Fire99
8,089 posts
98 months
|
hiccy said: Pushing the edge of technology costs an awful lot of money which isn't in line with current economics To be fair, when we have 1 litre 3-cylinder engines pushing 140bhp (and 170bhp it appears) in economical states of tune, There is probably more technology being used to keep the 15k revving 1.5 Turbo engine DOWN to 650bhp than up. The fact remains that in 2012 (well it will actually be 2014) when we have road cars pushing 1100bhp (Latest Veyron) having the 'pinnacle' of motorsport running 650bhp, is quite frankly pathetic. With highly impressive aero & grip, I think if my Mum got very fit, she could probably drive an F1 car with relative ease. Even now, Button, Alonso etc can chat away on the radio, whilst playing with brake balance, kers, drs, (and probably the air conditioning ) The F1 challenge is being diluted to almost unrecognisable levels.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
hiccy
662 posts
81 months
|
So who is responsible for designing and making the ERS, storage and motive systems? I'd basically just assumed it would be the engine manufacturers, is this the case? Will all teams running the same engine have the same ERS system? Or do the teams design their own?
|
|
|
tank slapper
7,747 posts
152 months
|
The engines are intended to be 650HP, but I wouldn't be surprised if development increases that substantially. The fuel flow is limited but boost isn't. Petrol engines are only about 30% efficient at extracting the energy from the fuel so there is considerable scope for improvements, especially in conjunction with energy recovery technologies which are still quite new. Some teams aren't getting the maximum allowed power from their current systems, so there is a lot of potential for big power outputs in future if the development rules aren't too restrictive.
|
|
|
Fantuzzi
Original Poster
1,429 posts
15 months
|
Fire99 said: With highly impressive aero & grip, I think if my Mum got very fit, she could probably drive an F1 car with relative ease. Go and watch the vid of Harris trying, that TRYING, to drive one. Tell your mum to put down her Sparcos....
|
|
|
Fire99
8,089 posts
98 months
|
Fantuzzi said: Go and watch the vid of Harris trying, that TRYING, to drive one.
Tell your mum to put down her Sparcos.... You may be surprised  Look, I'm not saying an F1 car is a Focus but relatively, compared to the handfulls they once were, they're not the same challenge. Brundle has been quoted as stating the current F1 car is gutless! and in 2014, we stand to lose more power.
|
|
|
hiccy
662 posts
81 months
|
Fire99 said: Fantuzzi said: Go and watch the vid of Harris trying, that TRYING, to drive one.
Tell your mum to put down her Sparcos.... You may be surprised Look, I'm not saying an F1 car is a Focus but relatively, compared to the handfulls they once were, they're not the same challenge. Brundle has been quoted as stating the current F1 car is gutless! and in 2014, we stand to lose more power. Will we though? The ERS is going to be usable for about five times longer each lap and electric motors have a flat torque curve I believe. Plus turbo engines produce more torque over a wider rev range than normally aspirated, don't they? So won't we end up an overall torque increase?
|
|
|
Fantuzzi
Original Poster
1,429 posts
15 months
|
hiccy said: Fire99 said: Fantuzzi said: Go and watch the vid of Harris trying, thats TRYING, to drive one.
Tell your mum to put down her Sparcos.... You may be surprised Look, I'm not saying an F1 car is a Focus but relatively, compared to the handfulls they once were, they're not the same challenge. Brundle has been quoted as stating the current F1 car is gutless! and in 2014, we stand to lose more power. Will we though? The ERS is going to be usable for about five times longer each lap and electric motors have a flat torque curve I believe. Plus turbo engines produce more torque over a wider rev range than normally aspirated, don't they? So won't we end up an overall torque increase? Couldnt care about numbers other than laptime, if they are slower around a track, then its a problem, if not, no worries. Sure we all like to see different rules in place, Im sure if we were given free reign on the F1 rule book each person would have slightly different rules, but thats motorsport. Sport needs restrictions, some are welcome some are not, but they are a part of it.
|
|
|
Scuffers
10,417 posts
143 months
|
Fantuzzi said: Couldnt care about numbers other than laptime, if they are slower around a track, then its a problem, if not, no worries.
Sure we all like to see different rules in place, Im sure if we were given free reign on the F1 rule book each person would have slightly different rules, but thats motorsport.
Sport needs restrictions, some are welcome some are not, but they are a part of it. the cars are already some 10 seconds a lap slower than 10-20 years ago, how much slower do you want them to go?
|
|
|
EDLT
14,580 posts
75 months
|
tank slapper said: The engines are intended to be 650HP, but I wouldn't be surprised if development increases that substantially. The fuel flow is limited but boost isn't. Petrol engines are only about 30% efficient at extracting the energy from the fuel so there is considerable scope for improvements, especially in conjunction with energy recovery technologies which are still quite new. Some teams aren't getting the maximum allowed power from their current systems, so there is a lot of potential for big power outputs in future if the development rules aren't too restrictive. What do you think 'boost' is? More air plus same amount of fuel does not equal more power.
|
|
|
tank slapper
7,747 posts
152 months
|
EDLT said: What do you think 'boost' is? More air plus same amount of fuel does not equal more power. Not directly, but it can affect how the power is developed across different engine speeds. Boost can be adjusted to provide a much flatter torque curve and broader power band than a very peaky naturally aspirated engine. In conjunction with the additional power from the ERS, which assuming it won't have to be just on/off, could make for some very flexible power plants.
|
|
|
Scuffers
10,417 posts
143 months
|
tank slapper said: EDLT said: What do you think 'boost' is? More air plus same amount of fuel does not equal more power. Not directly, but it can affect how the power is developed across different engine speeds. Boost can be adjusted to provide a much flatter torque curve and broader power band than a very peaky naturally aspirated engine. In conjunction with the additional power from the ERS, which assuming it won't have to be just on/off, could make for some very flexible power plants. not when the fuel flow is restricted and linked to throttle position (read the regs).
|
|
|
HeatonNorris
1,649 posts
17 months
|
Scuffers said: the cars are already some 10 seconds a lap slower than 10-20 years ago, how much slower do you want them to go? Proof? You said this before, but failed to account for circuit changes.
|
|
|
Fantuzzi
Original Poster
1,429 posts
15 months
|
Scuffers said: the cars are already some 10 seconds a lap slower than 10-20 years ago, how much slower do you want them to go? I dont want slower laptimes, thats my F  cking point... But I dont care if they have less BHP, capacity ect.
|
|
|
Fantuzzi
Original Poster
1,429 posts
15 months
|
Fire99 said: You may be surprised Look, I'm not saying an F1 car is a Focus but relatively, compared to the handfulls they once were, they're not the same challenge. Brundle has been quoted as stating the current F1 car is gutless! and in 2014, we stand to lose more power. Youre saying your Mum could, which is a stupid thing to say. A good racing car dos'nt have to be one thats hard to drive, Because heres a little secret, if its easier to drive its easier to race...
|
|
|
tank slapper
7,747 posts
152 months
|
Scuffers said: not when the fuel flow is restricted and linked to throttle position (read the regs). Fuel flow isn't linked to throttle position in the 2014 regs, it is linked to engine speed below 10500rpm using a formula that gives a linear increase up to that speed. Above 10500rpm the maximum fuel flow is available. Since the power delivered is a result of the airflow and the fuel flow, (unless I am missing something else in the rules) this allows the use of a higher boost at 10500rpm compared to at the rev limit to create a broader power band. The current regulations state a minimum gradient for the torque demand map above 5k rpm, and demand that an increase in pedal position results in an increase in torque. There is also a rule that the accelerator position map must be linked to the tyre type, one map for wet and one for dry. Those requirements are not in the 2014 regulations, only a requirement that maximum throttle position results in maximum output from the engine. It is possible that the 2014 rules will be amended before they come into effect, but at present there is a bit more flexibility than the current rules allow.
|
|
|
davepoth
19,925 posts
68 months
|
Any ideas about how having a turbo in the way might affect exhaust blown diffusers?
|
|
