FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[_55_]

4 cyl Turbos?? wtf??

They should have just:
- reduced to V6 and rev back up to 20,000 rpm (for the fans and sound).
- reduced car weight restriction (less fuel consumed to move lighter car)
- reduced race time to maximum 1.5 hrs = less fuel consumed (currently 2 hrs)
- restricted to 6 or 5 speed transmission

I'm an engineer, so check your rebuttals before replying/posting.

Just because your an engineer does not mean your correct in your assumption . Are you an automotive engineer, that is the true question, yet even so your calculations are just that simply calculations and until they are implemented on track they would barely be 50% correct.

[ignored]

First off let me say welcome to the forum . Secondly don't start off your first post with the implication that we should 'ignore' your opinion if we disagree with you just because your are an engineer, should we be impressed by that? Some do not need an engineering degree to fathom what the series or engines need, we have experience and imho that counts for something.

Other than that welcome but I do wonder how fast your '"Engineer's" hat is?

[ignored]

[F1er]

I want back this!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBxw4whvBiA

[texasmr2]

4 cyl Turbos?? wtf??

They should have just:
- reduced to V6 and rev back up to 20,000 rpm (for the fans and sound).
- reduced car weight restriction (less fuel consumed to move lighter car)
- reduced race time to maximum 1.5 hrs = less fuel consumed (currently 2 hrs)
- restricted to 6 or 5 speed transmission

I'm an engineer, so check your rebuttals before replying/posting.

Just because your an engineer does not mean your correct in your assumption . Are you an automotive engineer, that is the true question, yet even so your calculations are just that simply calculations and until they are implemented on track they would barely be 50% correct.

[ignored]

First off let me say welcome to the forum . Secondly don't start off your first post with the implication that we should 'ignore' your opinion if we disagree with you just because your are an engineer, should we be impressed by that? Some do not need an engineering degree to fathom what the series or engines need, we have experience and imho that counts for something.

Other than that welcome but I do wonder how fast your '"Engineer's" hat is?

[ignored]

Stop it your killing me . We do have a 'Friends & Foes" area where you can either add or delete me although since your an engineer I thought you would have something intelligent to add other than 'ignoring' someones opinion if they challenge yours ??

Go introduce yourself to the forum for christ sakes instead of trying to take it over, you won't win !

[_55_]

4 cyl Turbos?? wtf??

They should have just:
- reduced to V6 and rev back up to 20,000 rpm (for the fans and sound).
- reduced car weight restriction (less fuel consumed to move lighter car)
- reduced race time to maximum 1.5 hrs = less fuel consumed (currently 2 hrs)
- restricted to 6 or 5 speed transmission

I'm an engineer, so check your rebuttals before replying/posting.

Just because your an engineer does not mean your correct in your assumption . Are you an automotive engineer, that is the true question, yet even so your calculations are just that simply calculations and until they are implemented on track they would barely be 50% correct.

[ignored]

First off let me say welcome to the forum . Secondly don't start off your first post with the implication that we should 'ignore' your opinion if we disagree with you just because your are an engineer, should we be impressed by that? Some do not need an engineering degree to fathom what the series or engines need, we have experience and imho that counts for something.

Other than that welcome but I do wonder how fast your '"Engineer's" hat is?

[ignored]

Stop it your killing me . We do have a 'Friends & Foes" area where you can either add or delete me although since your an engineer I thought you would have something intelligent to add other than 'ignoring' someones opinion if they challenge yours ??

Go introduce yourself to the forum for christ sakes instead of trying to take it over, you won't win !

[ignored]

[F1er]

See what happens when you Fawwwing with newbies

[_55_]

I want back this!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBxw4whvBiA

Nice vid. that's the point I made with a V6. the reduced displacement would allow for higher revs. for example, a race which lasts 90 minutes from today's max 120 minutes:
2.4L @ 18,000 rpm / 2 x 120 mins. = 2,592,000 displacement / 10,000 factor +/- = 259L (240L, I was close)
1.8L @ 20,000 rpm / 2 x 90 mins. = 1,539,000 displacement / 10,000 factor +/- = 154L

= less fuel

[darwin dali]

TOP 20 ENGINEERS' TERMINOLOGIES
1. A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES ARE BEING TRIED - We are still pissing in the wind.
2. EXTENSIVE REPORT IS BEING PREPARED ON A FRESH APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM - We just hired three kids fresh out of college.
3. CLOSE PROJECT COORDINATION - We know who to blame.
4. MAJOR TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGH - It works OK, but looks very hi-tech.
5. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IS DELIVERED ASSURED - We are so far behind schedule the customer is happy to get it delivered.
6. PRELIMINARY OPERATIONAL TESTS WERE INCONCLUSIVE - The darn thing blew up when we threw the switch.
7. TEST RESULTS WERE EXTREMELY GRATIFYING - We are so surprised that the stupid thing works.
8. THE ENTIRE CONCEPT WILL HAVE TO BE ABANDONED - The only person who understood the thing quit.
9. IT IS IN THE PROCESS - It is so wrapped up in red tape that the situation is about hopeless.
10. WE WILL LOOK INTO IT - Forget it! We have enough problems for now.
11. PLEASE NOTE AND INITIAL - Let's spread the responsibility for the screw up.
12. GIVE US THE BENEFIT OF YOUR THINKING - We'll listen to what you have to say as long as it doesn't interfere with what we've already done.
13. GIVE US YOUR INTERPRETATION - I can't wait to hear this bull!
14. SEE ME or LET'S DISCUSS - Come into my office, I'm lonely.
15. ALL NEW - Parts not interchangeable with the previous design.
16. RUGGED - Too damn heavy to lift!
17. LIGHTWEIGHT - Lighter than RUGGED.
18. YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT - One finally worked.
19. ENERGY SAVING - Achieved when the power switch is off.
20. LOW MAINTENANCE - Impossible to fix if broken.

[texasmr2]

4 cyl Turbos?? wtf??

They should have just:
- reduced to V6 and rev back up to 20,000 rpm (for the fans and sound).
- reduced car weight restriction (less fuel consumed to move lighter car)
- reduced race time to maximum 1.5 hrs = less fuel consumed (currently 2 hrs)
- restricted to 6 or 5 speed transmission

I'm an engineer, so check your rebuttals before replying/posting.

Just because your an engineer does not mean your correct in your assumption . Are you an automotive engineer, that is the true question, yet even so your calculations are just that simply calculations and until they are implemented on track they would barely be 50% correct.

[ignored]

First off let me say welcome to the forum . Secondly don't start off your first post with the implication that we should 'ignore' your opinion if we disagree with you just because your are an engineer, should we be impressed by that? Some do not need an engineering degree to fathom what the series or engines need, we have experience and imho that counts for something.

Other than that welcome but I do wonder how fast your '"Engineer's" hat is?

[ignored]

Stop it your killing me . We do have a 'Friends & Foes" area where you can either add or delete me although since your an engineer I thought you would have something intelligent to add other than 'ignoring' someones opinion if they challenge yours ??

Go introduce yourself to the forum for christ sakes instead of trying to take it over, you won't win !

[ignored]

I did not mean to scare you by wanting to debate your theories but apparently your opinion or calculations cannot be subjected to different idea's and opinons since your an engineer . I'm certain you will [ignore] this reply aswell since you don't want anyone disagreeing with you .

that's the point I made with a V6. the reduced displacement would allow for higher revs. for example, a race which lasts 90 minutes from today's max 120 minutes:
2.4L @ 18,000 rpm / 2 x 120 mins. = 2,592,000 displacement / 10,000 factor +/- = 259L (240L, I was close)
1.8L @ 20,000 rpm / 2 x 90 mins. = 1,539,000 displacement / 10,000 factor +/- = 154L

= less fuel

You leftout one important calculation if not the most important, the drivers right foot .

[spankyham]

I want back this!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBxw4whvBiA

Nice vid. that's the point I made with a V6. the reduced displacement would allow for higher revs. for example, a race which lasts 90 minutes from today's max 120 minutes:
2.4L @ 18,000 rpm / 2 x 120 mins. = 2,592,000 displacement / 10,000 factor +/- = 259L (240L, I was close)
1.8L @ 20,000 rpm / 2 x 90 mins. = 1,539,000 displacement / 10,000 factor +/- = 154L

= less fuel

Welcome!

Sorry but I can't agree with any of this. By extension if we make the race 3 minutes and .1 litre engines we'd use way less fuel. But, here's the point. They don't give points in F1 races for how much fuel you use.

It's just my perspective, but, for those that want to watch races based on time, or prescription cars, or anything that isn't the leading edge/pinnacle of open-wheel racing performance, then please go watch some other form of racing. This is F1, and that's what F1 is. It is not a fuel saving green performance event. If that's your thing then watch the solar cars race from Darwin to Adelaide.

As to being green? Do some calculation on how much energy we waste transporting the F1 circus around the globe from race to race each year.

[What's Burning?]

I heard a statistic this year that said that all of the cars on the grid, in all of the races for the entire season, use less fuel than one 747 transport plane getting cargo to one of the Asian circuits from Europe.

[scotty]

I heard a statistic this year that said that all of the cars on the grid, in all of the races for the entire season, use less fuel than one 747 transport plane getting cargo to one of the Asian circuits from Europe.

I have heard similar statistics on many occasions too.

I suppose there's no need for me to go on a huge rant about the ridiculous race schedule they have in F1, because it's stating the obvious.

[_55_]

I want back this!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBxw4whvBiA

Nice vid. that's the point I made with a V6. the reduced displacement would allow for higher revs. for example, a race which lasts 90 minutes from today's max 120 minutes:
2.4L @ 18,000 rpm / 2 x 120 mins. = 2,592,000 displacement / 10,000 factor +/- = 259L (240L, I was close)
1.8L @ 20,000 rpm / 2 x 90 mins. = 1,539,000 displacement / 10,000 factor +/- = 154L

= less fuel

Welcome!

Sorry but I can't agree with any of this. By extension if we make the race 3 minutes and .1 litre engines we'd use way less fuel. But, here's the point. They don't give points in F1 races for how much fuel you use.

It's just my perspective, but, for those that want to watch races based on time, or prescription cars, or anything that isn't the leading edge/pinnacle of open-wheel racing performance, then please go watch some other form of racing. This is F1, and that's what F1 is. It is not a fuel saving green performance event. If that's your thing then watch the solar cars race from Darwin to Adelaide.

As to being green? Do some calculation on how much energy we waste transporting the F1 circus around the globe from race to race each year.

you've obviously missed the point completely. here.... READ, and keep in mind the general consensus that most people wish the engines sounded the way they did with a V10 at 19,000+ rpm (Honda almost 20,000)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 255871.stm

[_55_]

I heard a statistic this year that said that all of the cars on the grid, in all of the races for the entire season, use less fuel than one 747 transport plane getting cargo to one of the Asian circuits from Europe.

That sounds about right.... maybe I'm wrong (I'm usually not lol) but off the top of my head....
24 cars x approx 480 per weekend x 19 weekends = 218,880L fuel? .... sounds about right yeah.

[spankyham]

I want back this!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBxw4whvBiA

Nice vid. that's the point I made with a V6. the reduced displacement would allow for higher revs. for example, a race which lasts 90 minutes from today's max 120 minutes:
2.4L @ 18,000 rpm / 2 x 120 mins. = 2,592,000 displacement / 10,000 factor +/- = 259L (240L, I was close)
1.8L @ 20,000 rpm / 2 x 90 mins. = 1,539,000 displacement / 10,000 factor +/- = 154L

= less fuel

Welcome!

Sorry but I can't agree with any of this. By extension if we make the race 3 minutes and .1 litre engines we'd use way less fuel. But, here's the point. They don't give points in F1 races for how much fuel you use.

It's just my perspective, but, for those that want to watch races based on time, or prescription cars, or anything that isn't the leading edge/pinnacle of open-wheel racing performance, then please go watch some other form of racing. This is F1, and that's what F1 is. It is not a fuel saving green performance event. If that's your thing then watch the solar cars race from Darwin to Adelaide.

As to being green? Do some calculation on how much energy we waste transporting the F1 circus around the globe from race to race each year.

you've obviously missed the point completely. here.... READ, and keep in mind the general consensus that most people wish the engines sounded the way they did with a V10 at 19,000+ rpm (Honda almost 20,000)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 255871.stm

Got your point, and I understand you've provided your concept to keep the engine "sound" in a new leaner engine coupling that with shorter entertainment/races.

Perhaps you missed my point. A justification for the change (therefore why we are even discussing this) is to broaden F1's appeal to potential sponsors by being "greener". I'm putting forward the view that F1 shouldn't be, and isn't about, being green. If F1 was trying to be "green" then what's the point in saving a minuscule amount when F1 so flagrantly wastes energy in other areas.

[_55_]

I want back this!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBxw4whvBiA

Nice vid. that's the point I made with a V6. the reduced displacement would allow for higher revs. for example, a race which lasts 90 minutes from today's max 120 minutes:
2.4L @ 18,000 rpm / 2 x 120 mins. = 2,592,000 displacement / 10,000 factor +/- = 259L (240L, I was close)
1.8L @ 20,000 rpm / 2 x 90 mins. = 1,539,000 displacement / 10,000 factor +/- = 154L

= less fuel

Welcome!

Sorry but I can't agree with any of this. By extension if we make the race 3 minutes and .1 litre engines we'd use way less fuel. But, here's the point. They don't give points in F1 races for how much fuel you use.

It's just my perspective, but, for those that want to watch races based on time, or prescription cars, or anything that isn't the leading edge/pinnacle of open-wheel racing performance, then please go watch some other form of racing. This is F1, and that's what F1 is. It is not a fuel saving green performance event. If that's your thing then watch the solar cars race from Darwin to Adelaide.

As to being green? Do some calculation on how much energy we waste transporting the F1 circus around the globe from race to race each year.

you've obviously missed the point completely. here.... READ, and keep in mind the general consensus that most people wish the engines sounded the way they did with a V10 at 19,000+ rpm (Honda almost 20,000)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 255871.stm

Got your point, and I understand you've provided your concept to keep the engine "sound" in a new leaner engine coupling that with shorter entertainment/races.

Perhaps you missed my point. A justification for the change (therefore why we are even discussing this) is to broaden F1's appeal to potential sponsors by being "greener". I'm putting forward the view that F1 shouldn't be, and isn't about, being green. If F1 was trying to be "green" then what's the point in saving a minuscule amount when F1 so flagrantly wastes energy in other areas.

F1 is about "Higher Engineering" demonstrated for automotive. Technology spawned in F1 is flourished in production vehicle. "Green", if you haven't been paying attention, is first and foremost on the political and automotive stage. Now you know.