RE: FIA Plans 1.6-litre V6s For F1
Discussion
Wow all this speculation! In line 4, V 4 now V6 IT'S SOOO Exiting!
Go Bernie, Go!
Shame the feking racing is so boring!
Even broke Lewis's balls and he's not allowed to overtake now.
Leave it all alone, Put the winner at the back of the next race reverse order stylie!
Give points for Quali!
Simples?
Go Bernie, Go!
Shame the feking racing is so boring!
Even broke Lewis's balls and he's not allowed to overtake now.
Leave it all alone, Put the winner at the back of the next race reverse order stylie!
Give points for Quali!
Simples?
The engine configuration should be up to the manufacturers - if it was we would probably still have V10's, V12's or flat 12's of 3.5 litre's & nothing less.
All this talk of keeping costs down hence the smaller engines is a load of b
ks IMO. F1 is suppossed to be the pinnacle of motorsport however we get lumbered with crappy little engines.
1.5 litre V6's might be good but will they be as good as before? Me thinks not sadly.
All this talk of keeping costs down hence the smaller engines is a load of b
ks IMO. F1 is suppossed to be the pinnacle of motorsport however we get lumbered with crappy little engines.1.5 litre V6's might be good but will they be as good as before? Me thinks not sadly.
The idea is to get fuel usage lowered by around 30%... power is hped to be around the same as current PLUS the new regs for aero will help increase the specticle of the show which was, as I read it last, that they're thinking on reintroducing ground effects, that way there'll be no "dirty air" to slow the car behind... therefore no need for "overtaking aids" like DRS.
|I wasn't keen about the 4banger engines but a V6 with 15k rev limit I can agree to, providing the aero regs make the racing decent again
|I wasn't keen about the 4banger engines but a V6 with 15k rev limit I can agree to, providing the aero regs make the racing decent again
Dangermouse78 said:
The idea is to get fuel usage lowered by around 30%... power is hped to be around the same as current PLUS the new regs for aero will help increase the specticle of the show which was, as I read it last, that they're thinking on reintroducing ground effects, that way there'll be no "dirty air" to slow the car behind... therefore no need for "overtaking aids" like DRS.
|I wasn't keen about the 4banger engines but a V6 with 15k rev limit I can agree to, providing the aero regs make the racing decent again
that may have been the broad idea's some time ago, but what we are left with is:|I wasn't keen about the 4banger engines but a V6 with 15k rev limit I can agree to, providing the aero regs make the racing decent again
engines - reduced by ~150Hp
Kers - increase to ??? (hence they can say power is the same)
Ground effect - kicked into touch (again)
more DRS (and adaptations to it)
PhillipM said:
Not very well when you take the driver home in a coffin every race.
F1 used to be the sport of the brave, pushing technology to the edge, risking it all for the honour and the glory, now its the sport of pussy's, indycar is far superior, nobody wants to see a crash but its exciting to know it could happen...Its way too regulated now and the cars are super easy to drive compared to the old ones, somebody tried to tell me the other day that Lewis could be the best ever, he can't hold a candle to Senna/Stewart/Moss/etc he just has much better cars...
Is the rev limit as important with a turbo engine? If you run 2bar at 12K rpm you are shifting as much air as a NA engine at 24K rpm.
The 1986 1.5L BMW turbo was generating 1300bhp on a qualifying lap at only ~9000rpm.
http://www.gurneyflap.com/bmwturbof1engine.html
Are they other limits going to be imposed such as the pop-off valve on CART engines? I hope not. As most people here agree, there should be a set amount of fuel for the race and everything else unlimited.
The 1986 1.5L BMW turbo was generating 1300bhp on a qualifying lap at only ~9000rpm.
http://www.gurneyflap.com/bmwturbof1engine.html
Are they other limits going to be imposed such as the pop-off valve on CART engines? I hope not. As most people here agree, there should be a set amount of fuel for the race and everything else unlimited.
Edited by garycat on Tuesday 28th June 09:17
garycat said:
Is the rev limit as important with a turbo engine? If you run 2bar at 12K rpm you are shifting as much air as a NA engine at 24K rpm.
The 1986 1.5L BMW turbo was generating 1300bhp on a qualifying lap at only ~9000rpm.
http://www.gurneyflap.com/bmwturbof1engine.html
Are they other limits going to be imposed such as the pop-off valve on CART engines? I hope not. As most people here agree, there should be a set amount of fuel for the race and everything else unlimited.
apart from running at 2 bar (absolute)@12K will not shift the same air as 1 bar@24K, your also assuming that the engine regs are going to be open.The 1986 1.5L BMW turbo was generating 1300bhp on a qualifying lap at only ~9000rpm.
http://www.gurneyflap.com/bmwturbof1engine.html
Are they other limits going to be imposed such as the pop-off valve on CART engines? I hope not. As most people here agree, there should be a set amount of fuel for the race and everything else unlimited.
People need to read these proposed regs, they include boost limit's, fuel flow limit's, dimensional limit's, etc etc, they (FIA) have already stated that the target is 600Hp, and you can bet if anybody manages to do any better than this, they will get the goal-posts moved.
Even better idea if you want to improve efficiency is to issue a control fuel in a controlled quantity.
For example, each racer starts the race with 10 gallons, and no re-fuelling is allowed. This forces them to be doing at least 20mpg over 200 miles. This will create an interesting arms race to see who can get the most power from the least fuel and this will be useful development for road vehicles too.
Each year, the amount of fuel issued is dropped a little creating continuous development.
For example, each racer starts the race with 10 gallons, and no re-fuelling is allowed. This forces them to be doing at least 20mpg over 200 miles. This will create an interesting arms race to see who can get the most power from the least fuel and this will be useful development for road vehicles too.
Each year, the amount of fuel issued is dropped a little creating continuous development.
Pozzy said:
Why in the hell don't they just bring V12s back and fuel them with bio-ethanol? That would surely be acceptable from both viewpoints? Especially when it seems that the transport from race-to-race emissions far outweigh the emissions of the cars themselves...
Neither V12s or bio ethanol are relevant for the road though.Mind you, neither is 15,000 rpm....
Scuffers said:
I do wish people would stop saying this....
the engines that are being proposed will be nothing like what we had before, with the fuel flow limit's etc, we will be lucky to get 600Bhp, and consider Coulthard comments that the current 2.4V8's were gutless at ~750Bhp
What DC actually said was that they had bugger all torque NOT power. These new turbo units will more torque than any of the current drivers have experienced in an F1 car. Except maybe Rubens but i reckon he'll have packed it in by thenthe engines that are being proposed will be nothing like what we had before, with the fuel flow limit's etc, we will be lucky to get 600Bhp, and consider Coulthard comments that the current 2.4V8's were gutless at ~750Bhp
They'll still sound a bit pants compared to the old school V10's and V12's.Edited by GreatCornholio on Tuesday 28th June 10:16
Mr Gear said:
Pozzy said:
Why in the hell don't they just bring V12s back and fuel them with bio-ethanol? That would surely be acceptable from both viewpoints? Especially when it seems that the transport from race-to-race emissions far outweigh the emissions of the cars themselves...
Neither V12s or bio ethanol are relevant for the road though.Mind you, neither is 15,000 rpm....
Much better to allow F1 some more freedom in setting more of its own limits of resources. The balance to be found for the manufacturer backed teams is in the effect of the F1 project against brand image and, ultimately, sales of vehicles. The balance to be found for those teams who are just there to race is to have enough resources to be able to compete.
It is equally as dangerous to reduce the spectacular nature of the sport as it is to have too expensive a sport for those who would invest in it. The answer to one negative extreme should not be reversion to another, opposing one.
What we have at the moment is a bastardised set of circumstances where regulation changes are made in a very messy way to very mixed messages. There appears to be little high quality leadership coming from the FIA, as demonstrated by their own goal with the Bahrain situation.
To my mind the balance within F1 has tipped too far towards a cost cutting and eco aware agenda to the detriment of the spectacle. In effect, F1 reacted too late to the Worldwide downturn and have found themselves at the wrong end of the cycle; F1 was over-expensive at a time when investors could not afford it and with these new regs will be too austere when the people with money are looking to the glamour to sell.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff