1.6l v6 turbo?
Discussion
Scuffers said:
mollytherocker said:
Scuffers said:
if you want to promote innovation, forget engine regs, just give them 100L of fuel (or some other fixed amount) and tell them they can use it any way they want.
Can you imagine what 'cars' would turn up? First practice wouldnt even be allowed to start. There would be immense safety issues.
Scuffers said:
mollytherocker said:
Ok, but only if you agree to stop making completely unworkable suggestions.
Why is it unworkable?(In detail please)
It would be like a cross between wacky races, mad max and the demolition derby.
Actually, that sounds quite good.
Scuffers said:
So, better to spend several hundred thousands on designing engines that will have no use for anything else?
Well, yes. That's the way it's been for the past 63 years in F1, so what's suddenly different? IMO F1 should be more of a sport, less a marketing tool, and definitely not a misplaced marketing tool. Why not leave it up to the enthusiasts: Anyone who buys a GP ticket is allowed a vote on how F1 should be defined in terms of technology? The armchair enthusiasts will watch it on TV anyway, and the people who happen to like the more esoteric aspects of F1 (the sound for example) will be happy too.
Leave the pursuit of efficiency to the diesel-electric brigade at Le Mans (they are more than welcome to it).
phugleigh said:
The only thing I can hope for is a scattering of high exposure engine failures. You know like the ralf Schumacher one at 200mph+ at Indy - so good on so many levels. Dial in The Finger and you get the point. Apologies to h&s police, and those who don't agree
I also used to enjoy a good engine blow up. At least showed limits were being pushed (whether human or otherwise).Scuffers said:
There is a point to hybrid tech, and it has been in road cars for 20+ years.
It's development has nothing to do with F1
Erm, not entirely true. One of the more interesting ERS/hybrid systems is Williams flywheel system. That's being used in everything from LMP cars to buses - http://www.williamshybridpower.com/applications/bu...It's development has nothing to do with F1
rscott said:
Scuffers said:
There is a point to hybrid tech, and it has been in road cars for 20+ years.
It's development has nothing to do with F1
Erm, not entirely true. One of the more interesting ERS/hybrid systems is Williams flywheel system. That's being used in everything from LMP cars to buses - http://www.williamshybridpower.com/applications/bu...It's development has nothing to do with F1
and it never made it into F1 in the first place.....
Scuffers said:
if you want to promote innovation, forget engine regs, just give them 100L of fuel (or some other fixed amount) and tell them they can use it any way they want.
Problem with this idea is it would become a slower race than we have now with all of the teams trying to drive only just fast enough. Almost like the tyre problems we have now.G0ldfysh said:
Scuffers said:
if you want to promote innovation, forget engine regs, just give them 100L of fuel (or some other fixed amount) and tell them they can use it any way they want.
Problem with this idea is it would become a slower race than we have now with all of the teams trying to drive only just fast enough. Almost like the tyre problems we have now.if they all have the same amount of fuel, they will race as fast as they can without running out.
this is exactly how Group C was setup (the fuel economy formulae)
wiki said:
The roots of the Group C category lie in both FIA Group 6 and particularly in the GTP category introduced by the ACO at Le Mans in the mid-1970s. GTP was a class for roofed prototypes with certain dimensional restrictions, but instead of the more usual limits on engine capacity, it placed limits on fuel consumption. The FIA applied the same concept in its Group C rules. It limited cars to a minimum weight of 800 kg and a maximum fuel capacity of 100 litres. With competitors restricted to five refueling stops within a 1000 kilometer distance, the cars were effectively allowed 600 litres per 1000 kilometers. The FIA hoped this would prevent manufacturers from concentrating solely on engine development; in the late 1970s, a few manufacturers (especially Porsche and Lancia) had dominated sports car racing by simply increasing turbocharger boost pressure, especially in qualifying trim — the 3.2 L Porsche 935 was capable of more than 800 hp. Engines had to be from a recognized manufacturer which had cars homologated in the FIA's Group A Touring Car or Group B GT Car categories.
airbrakes said:
If this video is genuine, then the engines are going to sound immense!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wGZI2mryqY
It'll be back to the Senn/prost days of lower-revving, snarling units with turbo noise, rather than the horrid synthetic hairdryer/vacuum cleaner noises the cars currently make
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/10/18/honda-new-f1-engine-sound-video/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wGZI2mryqY
It'll be back to the Senn/prost days of lower-revving, snarling units with turbo noise, rather than the horrid synthetic hairdryer/vacuum cleaner noises the cars currently make
^^ THIS is what they sound like, bit like a cordless drill...
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff