FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[EagleF1-27]

Seeing as many modern new cars seem to be using turbo's dont see why F1 cars shouldnt do the same and go back to the 80's.
Dont like the ground effect idea returning though. Ground effect was created not only from the side skirts sealing the underside of the car, but also from the shape of the undertray. Basically an inverted wing shape extending most of the length of the car, so in effect it was like a longer version of the modern diffuser. Trouble was the downforce generated meant the suspension had to be very stiff making the cars very uncomfortable to drive, almost kart like. And most importantly in an accident where wheels touched and a car gets airbourne, the sudden loss of the ground effect made the cars fly, as evidenced by Gilles Villeneuve's fatal crash in 1982. In fact his crash and probably that of Pironi's contributed to the banning of ground effect in 1983.
I still maintain that active suspension, bigger rear tyres and wider cars with single element wings would greatly improve reliance on mechanical grip.

[texasmr2]

Having said that, I'd love to see turbo cars back on the grid. Am I right in saying that they will produce power lower down the rev range and more torque than the current v8 engines?

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Having said that, I'd love to see turbo cars back on the grid. Am I right in saying that they will produce power lower down the rev range and more torque than the current v8 engines?

I think there's not yet enough known about the 2013 configuration to make an educated guess. Turbos are not the best method for boosting bottom end because they tend to impede exhaust flow until they're revved enough to get the impellers spun up. From that point forward, the intake-side boost is greater than the exhaust-side obstruction. That's why drag racers run engine-driven superchargers, they are much better in that regard. A lot will depend on what limits are placed on the turbos themselves, like the maximum boost (probably 2-2.5 bar), the number of turbos (1, 2 or more?), their size and materials, and whether variable vane geometry is allowed.

GP Week are reporting that the FOTA also have agreed to limiting the new engines to 10,000 RPMs with KERS limited to 150 bhp. That means the 2013 engines will have a much longer stroke than the present engines, which both improves potential for low RPM Q and raises exhaust gas pressures at lower RPMs. The higher gas pressure should get the turbos "on the boost" at lower RPMs.

Since electric motors produce full Q from lowest RPMs, adding 150 bhp of KERS should make up the difference in acceleration, at least when KERS is available.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Ferrari are not happy with the proposed engine formula. They say the it is so complete a redesign, and especially in light of the new durability requirement, it cannot be developed in time. And it also will require a total revamp of the chassis. They prefer a 1.8-litre V-6 which will be 2/3rds of the present 2.4 litre V-8.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

It just occurred to me that with a 10,000 RPM limit, the engines no longer need pneumatic valve springs. They can revert to metal valve springs, which I would think would reduce development and production costs.

[What's Burning?]

Ferrari are not happy with the proposed engine formula. They say the it is so complete a redesign, and especially in light of the new durability requirement, it cannot be developed in time. And it also will require a total revamp of the chassis. They prefer a 1.8-litre V-6 which will be 2/3rds of the present 2.4 litre V-8.

I think the real reason Ferrari is unhappy with this rule change is that R&D here does not directly translate to benefit for their production vehicles.

[7UpJordan]

Ferrari are not happy with the proposed engine formula. They say the it is so complete a redesign, and especially in light of the new durability requirement, it cannot be developed in time. And it also will require a total revamp of the chassis. They prefer a 1.8-litre V-6 which will be 2/3rds of the present 2.4 litre V-8.

Ferrari aren't happy, what a surprise!

What are they moaning about? All they have to do is just look at their cars from the 80's as inspiration for designing a turbo car!

[What's Burning?]

Ferrari are not happy with the proposed engine formula. They say the it is so complete a redesign, and especially in light of the new durability requirement, it cannot be developed in time. And it also will require a total revamp of the chassis. They prefer a 1.8-litre V-6 which will be 2/3rds of the present 2.4 litre V-8.

Ferrari aren't happy, what a surprise!

What are they moaning about? All they have to do is just look at their cars from the 80's as inspiration for designing a turbo car!

Bring back 80's turbo lag! I remeber learning when to brace when my friends Saab 900 turbo kicked in. It was around 4 seconds after he stomped on the gas.

[MattMK45]

Only 10,000 rpm? And KERS? Personally I hated Kers because it could be used in an opportunistic or defensive situation and all the teams with lots of money were too fast for any other teams to keep up. (After all, like it or not, we want to see other teams being successful! Mind you, not too successful if you know what I mean!) And 10,000 rpm will be a pretty lousy redline. Does that then mean that the engines will sound totally different?

[7UpJordan]

Only 10,000 rpm? And KERS? Personally I hated Kers because it could be used in an opportunistic or defensive situation and all the teams with lots of money were too fast for any other teams to keep up. (After all, like it or not, we want to see other teams being successful! Mind you, not too successful if you know what I mean!) And 10,000 rpm will be a pretty lousy redline. Does that then mean that the engines will sound totally different?

The cars sound rubbish at 18K, WAY too whiny - more like a motor from a Scalextric car!

The Turbo's and 3.5 Litre V12's, 10's and 8's sounded awesome at the lower revs.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

McLaren have announced they support the proposed engine formula. But what do they care, they don't build the engine.

10,000 RPMs is pretty sad. There are production street motorcycles with 15,000 RPM redlines. And they come with a warranty and mufflers and everything.

[Bubbie]

They had better not screw up the sound. That is part of why I love F1, the sound of the cars. They don't sound as sexy now as they did a few years back and I am worried that they will soon sound terrible like the Indycars.

Is anyone else concerned that F1 is now not about being the pinnacle of racing technology, but about cost cutting and being "green"?

[scotty]

Only 10,000 rpm? And KERS? Personally I hated Kers because it could be used in an opportunistic or defensive situation and all the teams with lots of money were too fast for any other teams to keep up. (After all, like it or not, we want to see other teams being successful! Mind you, not too successful if you know what I mean!) And 10,000 rpm will be a pretty lousy redline. Does that then mean that the engines will sound totally different?

The cars sound rubbish at 18K, WAY too whiny - more like a motor from a Scalextric car!

The Turbo's and 3.5 Litre V12's, 10's and 8's sounded awesome at the lower revs.

Agreed, pretty much - for me the best was in the 90's when the engines ranged from 12-15000rpm. They ALL sounded brilliant!

[What's Burning?]

They had better not screw up the sound. That is part of why I love F1, the sound of the cars. They don't sound as sexy now as they did a few years back and I am worried that they will soon sound terrible like the Indycars.

Is anyone else concerned that F1 is now not about being the pinnacle of racing technology, but about cost cutting and being "green"?

You can be green and fast, look at LMP, the problem is in the cost cutting not the green.

[nish2280]

Why dont they double the engine size? Now i think that will be interesting! One massive 8 point something V16 running 36 thousand rpm.

The cars will turn into boats, turning into a corner will mean having to REALLY slow down to like 20mph due to the MASSIVE weight of the engine. Over taking will also become more spectacular because breaking distances will increased allowing more room to manouver.

I know its ridiculous and will probably up the costs for maintenance and reduce reliability.