FORUMula1.com

[Gaz]

Turbochargers burn of less fuel I.e better fuel economy and reduced emissions.

In relation to power output, comparing them to normally-aspirated engines, I think you're right...

Buds right,

If you took a 2.4 V8 F1 Engine and attached a turbo it would use more fuel

However if you say made it a V6 1.2 and attached a turbo you might see slightly better fuel efficacy for similar performance because of reduced weight but that's only because of the reduced weight

[onelapdown]

I think you might be getting confused by the Peugeot and Audi sportscars, which are certainly very efficient. However this is because they are diesels, and the turbo is there to improve their performance for an acceptable loss in efficiency.

[darwin dali]

Whoa.

This thread disintegrated nicely.

Honestly, I don't care if McLaren is called Mercedes, Ferrari is called FIAT, or Renault is called Betty. Gimme good racing, gimme good pilots, and I'm ok with all the names.

I like Betty

[Hanwombat]

Whoa.

This thread disintegrated nicely.

Honestly, I don't care if McLaren is called Mercedes, Ferrari is called FIAT, or Renault is called Betty. Gimme good racing, gimme good pilots, and I'm ok with all the names.

I like Betty

Mclaren for Fred, Ferrari for Barney and BMW for Wilma

[Gaz]

Whoa.

This thread disintegrated nicely.

Honestly, I don't care if McLaren is called Mercedes, Ferrari is called FIAT, or Renault is called Betty. Gimme good racing, gimme good pilots, and I'm ok with all the names.

I like Betty

Mclaren for Fred, Ferrari for Barney and BMW for Wilma

Billy For Williams

[AKR]

To be fair Kiki you went and said Brits were dumb so you led the conversation that way

This conversation about Turbos is quite interesting but before I move to that I want to point something out. Longbow I never said Brits are dumb. Go back and read my posts and you'll see I said Brits are actually smart as well. Seriously go back and you'll see. I only said Germans are smarter in a sarcastic way and referring more about how shifty they are if they get Mercedes to buyout McLaren in full and make them German. Also Bud did appologise to me in a personal email regarding the other comment which I did feel was racist, but I did realise and acknowledge that he meant it as a joke and didn't realise the implications as he said it. Anyway forget that. Back to Turbos.

At the moment, engines have become more reliable than ever in F1. Especially since they now must last 2 races. Mercedes had the best reliabilty last season with only on actual engine failure on Heikki's car. Other constructors in all were quite ok. Ferrari had a few issues in the first race and mid season but quickly reckified the problems. With Turbo cars I would feel that it will hurt reliabilty a bit as Turbo race cars are less reliable than non Turbo race cars. Although the Honda engines in the 1988 McLaren cars were quite reliable and quick compared to others of that time. However they only had to race 1 race distance and could also use different engines for qualifying etc back then. With todays rules you cannot and I would think that Turbo engines will have increased chances of failure especially to the turbocharger units themselves.

I would also like to point out that in the Group A touring car days, the Ford Sierra RS500 Cosworth were quick. They won many races including the inaugural World Touring Car Championship (Team Trophy Only), but their reliability was also dodgy. Its main rival back then, the BMW M3 which had no turbo was far more reliable. Although not as quick a car, it had more success than the Sierras simply because they were more reliabilty. Roberto Ravaglia of Italy in a BMW M3 won the inaugral World Touring Car Championhip in 1987 (Drivers Championship and main title). It was a once off World Touring Car Chamonship run alongside the then long running European Touring Car Championship. It was re-born again until 2005. In 2005 the European Touring Car Championship was promoted to World status. In 2000 the Italian Touring Car Championship was promoted to European Status. Today the WTCC is the third most important FIA championship after F1 and the WRC.

[Gaz]

To be fair Kiki you went and said Brits were dumb so you led the conversation that way

This conversation about Turbos is quite interesting but before I move to that I want to point something out. Longbow I never said Brits are dumb. Go back and read my posts and you'll see I said Brits are actually smart as well. Seriously go back and you'll see. I only said Germans are smarter in a sarcastic way and referring more about how shifty they are if they get Mercedes to buyout McLaren in full and make them German. Also Bud did appologise to me in a personal email regarding the other comment which I did feel was racist, but I did realise and acknowledge that he meant it as a joke and didn't realise the implications as he said it. Anyway forget that. Back to Turbos.

At the moment, engines have become more reliable than ever in F1. Especially since they now must last 2 races. Mercedes had the best reliabilty last season with only on actual engine failure on Heikki's car. Other constructors in all were quite ok. Ferrari had a few issues in the first race and mid season but quickly reckified the problems. With Turbo cars I would feel that it will hurt reliabilty a bit as Turbo race cars are less reliable than non Turbo race cars. Although the Honda engines in the 1988 McLaren cars were quite reliable and quick compared to others of that time. However they only had to race 1 race distance and could also use different engines for qualifying etc back then. With todays rules you cannot and I would think that Turbo engines will have increased chances of failure especially to the turbocharger units themselves.

I would also like to point out that in the Group A touring car days, the Ford Sierra RS500 Cosworth were quick. They won many races including the inaugural World Touring Car Championship (Team Trophy Only), but their reliability was also dodgy. Its main rival back then, the BMW M3 which had no turbo was far more reliable. Although not as quick a car, it had more success than the Sierras simply because they were more reliabilty. Roberto Ravaglia of Italy in a BMW M3 won the inaugral World Touring Car Championhip in 1987 (Drivers Championship and main title). It was a once off World Touring Car Chamonship run alongside the then long running European Touring Car Championship. It was re-born again until 2005. In 2005 the European Touring Car Championship was promoted to World status. In 2000 the Italian Touring Car Championship was promoted to European Status. Today the WTCC is the third most important FIA championship after F1 and the WRC.

Yeh, i'd rather see NA V8's as apposed to v6 Turbo's because they won't let turbo's back into F1 without an engine size reduction.

[EwanM]

Right back onto the topic at hand.

BMW surely have to be hot favourite for the early races now? They are pretty hyped up about their KERS system. Surely they'll come on strong.
Renault - resurgence would be my hopes - but realistically BMW will probably be the team that breaks Ferrari/Mclaren's stranglehold next year.
Hope to see Williams back up there and Vettel fighting.
As for Honda - to even consider dropping Rubens hopefully they have spent this year inventing a wind up radio by mistake

[kerc]

Whoa.

This thread disintegrated nicely.

Honestly, I don't care if McLaren is called Mercedes, Ferrari is called FIAT, or Renault is called Betty. Gimme good racing, gimme good pilots, and I'm ok with all the names.

I like Betty

Mclaren for Fred, Ferrari for Barney and BMW for Wilma

Billy For Williams

[McLaren Fan]

This isn't about Britain Versus Italy. Besides if you count Grand Prix Racing before 1950 as well, you'll find that Britain winning more than Italy is not the case. And also in the modern era most so called British wins were not full British wins. I.e. McLaren-Honda. Japanese power, Williams-Honda also Japanese power, McLaren-Mercedes and McLaren-Porsche, German Power, Williams-Renault, French Power, Benetton-Ford, Anglo Italian team with Anglo American engine, gee that's messed up etc etc etc. Ferrari, all Italian so STFU!

What about Britain's thirteen world drivers' championships against Italy's three?

In terms of turbochargers, they are not greener at the moment, but some of their principles could be used to either save fuel or cut emissions.

[bud]

Turbochargers burn of less fuel I.e better fuel economy and reduced emissions.

So if we stuck a turbo on the current engine would they all of the sudden burn less fuel?
ok for example turbo Astra vs N/A Astra, same engine but one has forced induction. which one will burn more fuel? Im thinking the Turbo!

the myth that turbo's are green stems from comparing them to large displacement engines, but they are still gas guzzlers in their own right!

[AKR]

This isn't about Britain Versus Italy. Besides if you count Grand Prix Racing before 1950 as well, you'll find that Britain winning more than Italy is not the case. And also in the modern era most so called British wins were not full British wins. I.e. McLaren-Honda. Japanese power, Williams-Honda also Japanese power, McLaren-Mercedes and McLaren-Porsche, German Power, Williams-Renault, French Power, Benetton-Ford, Anglo Italian team with Anglo American engine, gee that's messed up etc etc etc. Ferrari, all Italian so STFU!

What about Britain's thirteen world drivers' championships against Italy's three?

In terms of turbochargers, they are not greener at the moment, but some of their principles could be used to either save fuel or cut emissions.

Yeah but that is from 1950 onwards. Now count these championships as well as it is only fair. Ferdinando Minoia, Alfa Romeo 1931 European Champion (That as the highest level at that time) and Tazio Nuvolari, Alfa Romeo 1932. By the way those Alfa Romeo's were SCUDERIA FERRARI'S TEAM. Now that is 5 wins. You might as well also count 1925 World Manufactuers cup which Alfa Romeo (Scuderia Ferrari) won. Although only a constructors World Championship win (1925 to 1927 there was a World Constructors Championship), the whole team was Italian back then. These were the actual drivers that won Championship counting races in that year for Alfa Romeo, Antonio Ascari and Gastone Brilli-Peri both Italian. So now make that 6. Now the reality is that i those days there wasn't many championships. The championship as we know it began in 1950. That entire era was mostly domoinated by Italians and Germans. Had there been a championship every year back in those golden days, Italy would easilyhave at least 20 now.

Also note that Argentinian driver Juan Manuel Fangio is of Italian ancestry. As a at least half of all of Argentina's current population. The name Fangio is Italian. As is the case with current Brazilianm drivers Barrichello and Massa. These people in actual fact have more Italian blood than me. This is because they have ancestry based in Italy. In my case it is actual a zero in that sense. So Mr Chris McLaren Fan. Italy is everywhere even in Great Britian. Even London was founded by the Romans. Even your Scottish drivers surnames, Dario Franchitti and Paul Di Resta are Italian surnames. Somewhere along the lines their roots trace back to Italy. There is no escape Chris my good friend.

Now back to Turbochargers. Why can't the just be a 3.0 litre with Turbochargers? They will be very fast cars. Why does the FIA always want to slow the cars down? I would say the F1 cars from 1987 to 1995 were quicker overall than todays cars.........

[KyrosV]

Turbochargers burn of less fuel I.e better fuel economy and reduced emissions.

So if we stuck a turbo on the current engine would they all of the sudden burn less fuel?
ok for example turbo Astra vs N/A Astra, same engine but one has forced induction. which one will burn more fuel? Im thinking the Turbo!

the myth that turbo's are green stems from comparing them to large displacement engines, but they are still gas guzzlers in their own right!

Nooooooo what kind of Turbos do you get down under??

Turbos Inject the fuel and lets less air get into the combustion chamber so it doesnt waste by burning excess fuel. therefore you get more miles for your gallon. plus the bonus of more power (once it kicks in)

its more of a myth that turbos are not green...

(I am talking V6 turbo compared to NA V8 btw)

[bud]

I've owned Japanese turbo cars, I'm looking at getting a ford falcon XR6 turbo and it's fuel consumption is greater than the N/A version

[AKR]

Turbochargers burn of less fuel I.e better fuel economy and reduced emissions.

So if we stuck a turbo on the current engine would they all of the sudden burn less fuel?
ok for example turbo Astra vs N/A Astra, same engine but one has forced induction. which one will burn more fuel? Im thinking the Turbo!

the myth that turbo's are green stems from comparing them to large displacement engines, but they are still gas guzzlers in their own right!

Nooooooo what kind of Turbos do you get down under??

Turbos Inject the fuel and lets less air get into the combustion chamber so it doesnt waste by burning excess fuel. therefore you get more miles for your gallon. plus the bonus of more power (once it kicks in)

its more of a myth that turbos are not green...

(I am talking V6 turbo compared to NA V8 btw)

This is what they get in Australia. Here are 2 almost same cars. FG Falcon XR6 Turbo (4.0 Litre in line 6 Turbo) and FG Falcon XR8 (NA 5.4 Litre V8). The XR6 Turbo is lighter, quicker and consumes less petrol. Conclusion. Turbocharged sixes are generally better than NA V8s.