FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

English, dammit! * shakes fist in anger *

Yeah, us Yankies aren't generally multilingual. (I suppose I used that term correctly. In the US a "Yankie" is a northerner, but I was under the impression overseas it's used for the US in general.)

Yep, Even a Texan is a Yank to us Australians

If there was any real oil production in Australia the similarities of stereotypes would be uncanny.

[phil12321]

It would be nice to have a choice between types of engines like in the early 90's. where some teams used Cosworth DFV V8 variants, Ferrari used v12's, Renault had twin turbo v6's for example. It would be cool to see what engine philosophy the car makers adopt when pertaining to F1. 1.8L V6 TT I can imagine would make some serious power......

[spankyham]

Todt/FiA have known they were beat on this one for a while. This is a "face-saving" exercise. Don't dump it, put it off so far into the future that no-one will notice when we choose something else in the next year or so.

JT probably thinks he can bargain it away to keep the FiA in the picture for the world of the "next-Concorde"

LDM must laugh him self to sleep every night wondering how his old "we'll break-away" just keeps working and working for him.

Team will get a bigger share and more say in the rules and the more things change the more they'll stay the same.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

It would be nice to have a choice between types of engines like in the early 90's. where some teams used Cosworth DFV V8 variants, Ferrari used v12's, Renault had twin turbo v6's for example. It would be cool to see what engine philosophy the car makers adopt when pertaining to F1. 1.8L V6 TT I can imagine would make some serious power......

Except that the 2013 spec engines are formulated to turn 100-150 bhp less (depending whether you're talking Rinnow or Merc) than the current lot. The FIA proposes doubling the output of CURSE to make up the diff.

By 1983, there was no "choice" in engine format. If you were competitive, you were running a turbo. period. Full stop. The top three teams in WCC that season ran forced induction exclusively (the 4th place team ran a mixture). With 375 WCC points available, those top three teams took 240 between them. That fourth place team had exactly half as many points as the third place team.

The choice wasn't whether to run a turbo or not, it was whether to be competitive or not. And turbos were banned before 1990 (after 1988).

[phil12321]

It would be nice to have a choice between types of engines like in the early 90's. where some teams used Cosworth DFV V8 variants, Ferrari used v12's, Renault had twin turbo v6's for example. It would be cool to see what engine philosophy the car makers adopt when pertaining to F1. 1.8L V6 TT I can imagine would make some serious power......

Except that the 2013 spec engines are formulated to turn 100-150 bhp less (depending whether you're talking Rinnow or Merc) than the current lot. The FIA proposes doubling the output of CURSE to make up the diff.

By 1983, there was no "choice" in engine format. If you were competitive, you were running a turbo. period. Full stop. The top three teams in WCC that season ran forced induction exclusively (the 4th place team ran a mixture). With 375 WCC points available, those top three teams took 240 between them. That fourth place team had exactly half as many points as the third place team.

The choice wasn't whether to run a turbo or not, it was whether to be competitive or not. And turbos were banned before 1990 (after 1988).

Your absolutely right??? my apologies on the dates.... 1988 was the last of the turbo's... but I guess what Im trying to say is that Constructors should have more say in what type of technology they want to develop when it comes to engine design. IMO

[FerrariFan63]

Turbo engines with a limited amount of fuel per race should improve the racing spectacle.

An 1800cc turbo engine should be able to produce far more peak power than a 2400cc normally aspirated engine. However, as has been pointed out, mostly that additional power will be due to forced induction pushing more fuel into the engine, rather than efficiency gains. Hence, drivers will not be able to use the full power of the engine throughout a race.

However, if you have one driver stuck behind another, the following driver could opt to use more boost for a temporary increase in power to make a pass. The races would then become more tactical, as drivers would have to manage their fuel and available power throughout the race. A driver who has managed fuel better throughout the race can then decide how to use that advantage tactically to race a driver who is ahead on the track, but who has less available fuel. This would, in my opinion, give some of the advantages of DRS in improving the spectacle, effectively a push to pass button, but be much less artificial and more fair. It would be more like, e.g., the tactics and racing we get in MotoGP due to tyre management.

However, with the 2013 engine specifications having a much lower rev limit, and "fuel flow restrictions", I suspect that we won't get the situation as I describe it, and once again an opportunity to improve F1 will be missed. It seems simple to me. Turbo engines and fuel restrictions = better racing. String fuel flow restrictions = ?????

[bud]

Turbos are effectively more efficient because the force induction is to do with air not the fuel, so a turbo or supercharger increases the air pressure in the intake before the fuel and air are mixed in the combustion chamber.

here is a lil snippet from wiki that explains better than I!

An additional compressor fed into the intake of the engine makes it a forced induction. A compressor feeding pressure into another greatly increases the total compression ratio of the entire system. This intake pressure is called boost. Higher compression engines have the benefit of maximizing the amount of useful energy extracted per unit of fuel. Therefore, the thermal efficiency of the engine is increased in accordance with the vapor power cycle analysis of the second law of thermodynamics.

What they should do is decrease the engine capacity of the current engines maybe 1.8 and turbo charge these units. Alot cheaper.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

...What they should do is decrease the engine capacity of the current engines maybe 1.8 and turbo charge these units. Alot cheaper.

No, what the FIA should do is stay the hell out of the engine design business.

[myownalias]

The 1600L4 Turbo will be a great technical challenge instead of these homologated engines we have now. Or better still; any team can have any engine design they want as long as the power output doesn't exceed 'X' hp and 'X' revs, that'll create true innovation and will probably end up being more road relevant for whatever market an engine manufacturer wants to target!