FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[welshie]

You'll hear no arguement from me there mate. I say it should happen sooner, oil industry says later!

But your right, one day it will all change, and when it does i'll be a happy man.

[darwin dali]

And it would make sense to start now rather than wait until we'll have to and it'll hurt even more. That's why I think it's a good thing that F1 finally tries to become greener or there could be a backlash in the near future.

[beach89]

True there could be problems.

[freakonaleash]

The only problem is, at 20 000 RPM, an 4-stroke engine is completing the power stroke 5000 times ! You can imagine that the tiny amount of fuel that powers 5000 of those strokes, will start to add up, and before you know it, 3.3 MPG. Now think if this was a regular street car, revving around 3000 RPM (average).. you'd be getting around 20 - 21 MPG

[Boxofwonders]

They could always use bioethanol. The new Koenigsegg CCXR runs on bioethanol and produces 1004 bhp and will do 0-100 kph in 3.2. If only Koenigsegg were in F1.

[madbrad]

If they had no downforce they'd get much better mileage.

[bud]

actually slower lap times due to less downforce would mean higher strains on the RPM and fuel usage.

they should run on the gas coming from bernie and maxes mouth, would power the globe for the next few centuries!

[madbrad]

The lap times would be longer, yes.
What is "higher strains on the rpms"? How dou you strain an RPM? You do know that an RPM is not a part, right? How does this cause more fuel usage? Please enlighten with a science class.
I just meant the Cd would be far less, so naturally less hp is needed to move the car through the air.

[darwin dali]

My guess is bud was referring to the fact that when there's no downforce, it would be more difficult to get the power on the track, thus, you'd compensate with higher revs (some of which would be lost through empty spins like when you want to get out of a mudhole or on snow/ice). Higher revs means wear and tear on engine parts and higher fuel consumption. How did I do bud?

[madbrad]

You mean the wheels will spin all the time! yeah that would use more gas because as far as the wheels are concerned those are miles being driven, so a 3 mile lap appears as a 10 mile lap to the wheels and engine.
But I don't think I'd respond to wheelspin with more gas pedal. I'd lift. So there's the field of wingless F1 cars going gingerly around the track trying to feel around for the quuickest way around, not letting the wheels spin. Slow laps but good gas mileage. If there were never any wings before, nobody'd be the wiser.

[darwin dali]

Lift? Tell that KR or almost any driver

You're coming out of a right hander onto the loooong straight away. You want to accelerate, but your wheels ever so slightly spin, no problem with stability, you're going straight. Would you lift? No - you can handle it easily and be fast at the same time (and use more fuel).

[madbrad]

You will lose a tire and end your race, thereby conserving fuel while increasing the spectacle of the sport. Whoever doesn't do that will spend most of the race behind a safety car, thereby conserving fuel.
Think of the start. It will take about 5 minutes for the field to reach and then navigate turn 1. Anyone wiuth the nerve to increase their wheelspin will swing sidways and, this being the start, will take out a few guys, imposing his fuel saving religion on them for the good of mother Earth, and the safety car will do so for the rest. It's a win-win situation. I'm firing a letter off to bernie now.

[madbrad]

And by wheels I mean rear wheels. The front wheels don't know anything, They're stupid.

[welshie]

A vehicles fuel efficiency is proportional to it's drag coefficient (i.e. the amount the air is working against the vehicles movement), F1 cars have an exceptionally large drag coefficient due to wings trying to create down-force, therefore lowering down-force will improve fuel efficiency.

[bud]

A vehicles fuel efficiency is proportional to it's drag coefficient (i.e. the amount the air is working against the vehicles movement), F1 cars have an exceptionally large drag coefficient due to wings trying to create down-force, therefore lowering down-force will improve fuel efficiency.

in a straight line that would be the case but an F1 car is designed to go fast around a circuit and i would say the downforce makes the cars more efficient by going faster. lets say monaco spec Ferrari vs monza spec Ferrari on the monte carlo track, which car would travel quicker? the monaco spec, would travel the circuit in less time and by doing so use less fuel.

i could be wrong i aint no engineer like you welshie or a professor like you DD but i am the shadow minister for partying down in australia