FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[7UpJordan]

Aero will still play a massive role in 2013, infact the shapes of the cars might revert to a lower shape as we saw in the 80s as the need for the air intake above the drivers head wont be needed. You'll find as you were mentioning the air intake for the turbo will be as short as possible so would be located on the side pods.

Now all they need to do is make the cars wider, and find a way to make sure the Turbo's still retain that really bad lag.

[texasmr2]

Aero will still play a massive role in 2013, infact the shapes of the cars might revert to a lower shape as we saw in the 80s as the need for the air intake above the drivers head wont be needed. You'll find as you were mentioning the air intake for the turbo will be as short as possible so would be located on the side pods.

Now all they need to do is make the cars wider, and find a way to make sure the Turbo's still retain that really bad lag.

Never realized they had 'bad lag' as F1 was one of the first series to utilize the ballbearing concept also their induction and exhuast systems were designed for max-flow/least restriction to help reduce the lag asmuch as possible. Yes there will always be lag but when your 85-90% on the boiler the lag should not be an issue. I do see your kinda ploking fun so all is well and man oh man I could not agree more about making the cars wider .

[f1eric]

Formula One has now turned into a NASCAR, spec-car type series. I at least got to see the mighty v-10 cars in action a few times, and I'm happy for that. Like it or not, noise is part of the attraction and so are speeds in excess of 220mph. Less-loud cars only capable of going 180-190mph max just isn't the same spectacle.

So, I say to the Formula One powers that be: Just exactly what is wrong with 1000+hp, active suspensions, abs brakes, fully automatic transmission shifting, two-way telemetry, etc. This stuff is fascinating, cool, and I miss it. And why do they keep making the damn tires smaller?! I want to see the cutting edge of what a race car can do.

I am well aware of the argument regarding money and cost control. But I'm also aware that stable rules over extended periods tend to bring costs down. I believe it also makes the racing better. And stuff the environmental argument: it's just ridiculous and makes people look stupid.

Regardless, I'm sad that what made Formula One great is no more. Why is it so hated?

[texasmr2]

Less-loud cars only capable of going 180-190mph max just isn't the same spectacle.

The turbo cars were faster than the n/a's .

So, I say to the Formula One powers that be: Just exactly what is wrong with 1000+hp, active suspensions, abs brakes, fully automatic transmission shifting, two-way telemetry, etc. This stuff is fascinating, cool, and I miss it. And why do they keep making the damn tires smaller?! I want to see the cutting edge of what a race car can do.

Your 'cutting edge' lies more in forced induction cars than n/a cars but I like what you said.

I am well aware of the argument regarding money and cost control. But I'm also aware that stable rules over extended periods tend to bring costs down. I believe it also makes the racing better. And stuff the environmental argument: it's just ridiculous and makes people look stupid.

Actually mixing up and changing the rules every so often leads to better racing, who can produce the best package with the alotted time and how they implement the rules.

Regardless, I'm sad that what made Formula One great is no more. Why is it so hated?

Not hated here why do you think we debate and argue so much ?

[What's Burning?]

I have no problems with a sport evolving especially given nature of the automotive industry. As long as F1 continues to be about engineers and drivers extracting the maximum performance out of a given set of rules I'm a happy fan.

[f1eric]

Darwin wrote:

Ah Adrian - yes!

If it wasn't for him (and some other guys), I'd say this entire exercise smells suspiciously similar to the ill-fated 'No Child Left Behind Act' we here in the US can thank W for. It's generally accepted wisdom that this mandate caused the widespread dumbing down of educational standards. I sure hope F1 won't retard itself for VW's sake

[/quote]


Since this seems to be a somewhat international forum, I felt compelled to set the record straight: Although signed into law by W., No Child Left Behind was a Democrat/Ted Kennedy initiative. It was signed into law as part of a compromise package and was not a Republican/Bush initiative as such. Not arguing, just clarifying.

[f1eric]

Texasmr2,

My fault, I didn't mean to imply that the group here are haters! I guess I'm angry at the rules makers and others in control that I percieve to be purposefully trying to ruin a series I love and I ask them (not expecting a reply of course) why they hate F1 so much. Also, I'm cool with any engine (turbo, n-a, supercharged) that burns some form of gasoline and makes lots of noise and power. And the more noise and power the better!

Anyway, my apologies if I offended as it certainly wasn't my intent.

Cheers!

[texasmr2]

No offense taken as we are just discussing our views and different opinions .

[f1eric]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't there talk at some point of going to a diesel/turbo/4 cylinder engine? At the size limit proposed, what kind of power can you get out of something like that?

[darwin dali]

Darwin wrote:

Ah Adrian - yes!

If it wasn't for him (and some other guys), I'd say this entire exercise smells suspiciously similar to the ill-fated 'No Child Left Behind Act' we here in the US can thank W for. It's generally accepted wisdom that this mandate caused the widespread dumbing down of educational standards. I sure hope F1 won't retard itself for VW's sake

Since this seems to be a somewhat international forum, I felt compelled to set the record straight: Although signed into law by W., No Child Left Behind was a Democrat/Ted Kennedy initiative. It was signed into law as part of a compromise package and was not a Republican/Bush initiative as such. Not arguing, just clarifying.[/quote]


This may well be - HOWEVER, the problem with it is less with the idea itself, but with the implementation. And W mandated the act w/o proper funding as you can easily find out by talking to teachers and admins, which then led to the after effects we're having now (dumbing down and all).

[f1eric]

Darwin wrote:

Ah Adrian - yes!

If it wasn't for him (and some other guys), I'd say this entire exercise smells suspiciously similar to the ill-fated 'No Child Left Behind Act' we here in the US can thank W for. It's generally accepted wisdom that this mandate caused the widespread dumbing down of educational standards. I sure hope F1 won't retard itself for VW's sake

Since this seems to be a somewhat international forum, I felt compelled to set the record straight: Although signed into law by W., No Child Left Behind was a Democrat/Ted Kennedy initiative. It was signed into law as part of a compromise package and was not a Republican/Bush initiative as such. Not arguing, just clarifying.

This may well be - HOWEVER, the problem with it is less with the idea itself, but with the implementation. And W mandated the act w/o proper funding as you can easily find out by talking to teachers and admins, which then led to the after effects we're having now (dumbing down and all).[/quote]

Hmm. Sort of like....OBAMA Care!

[What's Burning?]

Hmm. Sort of like....OBAMA Care!

Um... no, nothing like the health care reform. That was completely funded by savings and cuts. I agree, so many things about it could have been better if it hadn't been compromised to the degree it was to cater to politicians than didn't vote for it anyway.

But we digress... we're way off topic for this 2013 engine changes thread.

[f1eric]

Hmm. Sort of like....OBAMA Care!

Um... no, nothing like the health care reform. That was completely funded by savings and cuts. I agree, so many things about it could have been better if it hadn't been compromised to the degree it was to cater to politicians than didn't vote for it anyway.

But we digress... we're way off topic for this 2013 engine changes thread.

I agree, but I'm not the one who felt the need (bizzarely) to bring politics into a discussion about F1engines. Not exactly what I was looking for, but I'm happy to move on. And about those "savings and cuts"; what can I say, you're a funny guy and make me laugh. Thanks!

[texasmr2]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't there talk at some point of going to a diesel/turbo/4 cylinder engine?

I missed the diesel stuff but turbocharged 1.5ltr engines, I4 or V6, are what impressed me so much back in the late '70's and early '80's as some engines were making in access of 1100hp in qualifying trim and 900+hp in race trim, simply amazing stuff.

At the size limit proposed, what kind of power can you get out of something like that?

Refer to my previous comment but certainly there will be a set boost limit for not only engine life but cost savings.

I agree, but I'm not the one who felt the need (bizzarely) to bring politics into a discussion about F1engines.

Actaully concerning the BIG PICTURE for F1 they go hand in hand . Sorry if I digressed too much, it's my MO .

[f1eric]

At the size limit proposed, what kind of power can you get out of something like that?

Refer to my previous comment but certainly there will be a set boost limit for not only engine life but cost savings.

You're right, of course they will put a limit on it. And this is what gets to me. A boost limit comes off (at least to me) as just being arbitrary and perhaps innovation stifling. I'd rather see something like "OK, as much boost as you want as long as the engine can last through two race weekends." If you grenade during practice, for instance, then you know you need to dial it down. But if it lasts, then the advantage goes to your team. Hopefully superior engineering wins out.