[Tech Issue] Formula One: The Next Generation. What would you like to see?

[luke g28]

What could they protest about? nobody would be breaking any rules..

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

What could they protest about? nobody would be breaking any rules..

Correct. No one would be breaking any rules.

If someone turns up with a jet powered car with down force and handling to match.....someone is going to complain.

So you ban jet powered cars?

And then someone has a small nuclear reactor in their car. So you ban nuclear powered cars?

Then we have someone with a 10 litre turbo diesel powered car that looks suspiciously familiar........

Four cars qualify, twenty cars fail to make the 107% qualifying target time set by the 19.7 litre jet fuel powered V24 engined quadruple turboed HRT cars.

The race ends with just two fatalities, a breakdown (mental), and a driver suffering from the effects of g-force who wins, but is in no condition to receive his trophy.

[luke g28]

Nah dont ban them, I want to see the jet car vs nuclear vs 10 litre turbo diesel.

Lets be honest now if jet cars or nuclear cars could win a 90 minute race it would be worth watching

Plus you now have a race where every car looks completely different and drives completely different.

Just put a fuel limit on it as well in the name of "eco" and to develop reliable high efficiency engines / alternatives.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Just put a fuel limit on it as well in the name of "eco" and to develop reliable high efficiency engines / alternatives.

Once you start putting 'limits' on things, then the choices begin to narrow. And when you find that you have to put more limits on things to avoid other 'dead end' technologies, then you'll end up with something like we have now.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Just put a fuel limit on it as well in the name of "eco" and to develop reliable high efficiency engines / alternatives.

That's been my tune for years. I would define the "fuel limit" as kilojoules. Any fuel type you like (provided the exhaust it generates isn't any more toxic than normal road car exhaust).

Originally Posted by Marbot

Once you start putting 'limits' on things, then the choices begin to narrow. And when you find that you have to put more limits on things to avoid other 'dead end' technologies, then you'll end up with something like we have now.

What we have now is what you get when you have excessive limits aimed at protecting the status quo.

If you have an energy limit, safety rules, rules aimed at preventing use of very expensive and exotic materials/manufacturing processes, and an overall vehicle width (so there is room to pass) there would be a very interesting technical arms race, like what we used to have.

If somebody has kinetic energy recovery, exhaust gas energy recovery, engine coolant energy recovery and as a result has a car that can go like stink, to where there are significant safety concerns, you simply lower the energy value to go the distance and, presto!, the speed gets reduced. You don't need reams of aerodynamic rules to do the job.

Downforce would get reduced because the emphasis would move more toward drag reduction. Because the rules are very open, there isn't a well-worn path to the optimum solution so the cars would have different capabilities, encouraging passing. Somebody will come up with a solution which is better than the others, until somebody else comes up with something nobody else thought of and takes over.

You would also get the interesting 'last of the old beats the first of the new' effect we used to get.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

That's been my tune for years. I would define the "fuel limit" as kilojoules. Any fuel type you like (provided the exhaust it generates isn't any more toxic than normal road car exhaust).

What we have now is what you get when you have excessive limits aimed at protecting the status quo.

If you have an energy limit, safety rules, rules aimed at preventing use of very expensive and exotic materials/manufacturing processes, and an overall vehicle width (so there is room to pass) there would be a very interesting technical arms race, like what we used to have.

If somebody has kinetic energy recovery, exhaust gas energy recovery, engine coolant energy recovery and as a result has a car that can go like stink, to where there are significant safety concerns, you simply lower the energy value to go the distance and, presto!, the speed gets reduced. You don't need reams of aerodynamic rules to do the job.

Downforce would get reduced because the emphasis would move more toward drag reduction. Because the rules are very open, there isn't a well-worn path to the optimum solution so the cars would have different capabilities, encouraging passing. Somebody will come up with a solution which is better than the others, until somebody else comes up with something nobody else thought of and takes over.

You would also get the interesting 'last of the old beats the first of the new' effect we used to get.

No arguments, although banning exotic materials again stunts the development. Turbines - love turbines!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by miatanut

That's been my tune for years. I would define the "fuel limit" as kilojoules. Any fuel type you like (provided the exhaust it generates isn't any more toxic than normal road car exhaust).

hmmm....define "normal road car exhaust".

Originally Posted by miatanut

What we have now is what you get when you have excessive limits aimed at protecting the status quo.

If you have an energy limit, safety rules, rules aimed at preventing use of very expensive and exotic materials/manufacturing processes, and an overall vehicle width (so there is room to pass) there would be a very interesting technical arms race, like what we used to have.

If somebody has kinetic energy recovery, exhaust gas energy recovery, engine coolant energy recovery and as a result has a car that can go like stink, to where there are significant safety concerns, you simply lower the energy value to go the distance and, presto!, the speed gets reduced. You don't need reams of aerodynamic rules to do the job.

Downforce would get reduced because the emphasis would move more toward drag reduction. Because the rules are very open, there isn't a well-worn path to the optimum solution so the cars would have different capabilities, encouraging passing. Somebody will come up with a solution which is better than the others, until somebody else comes up with something nobody else thought of and takes over.

You would also get the interesting 'last of the old beats the first of the new' effect we used to get.

In most respects, the 2014 regulations answer most of those questions.

What you also seem to be suggesting is that one team will always be favourite to win a championship in a typical year, because they came up with the best solution. For example, Williams were in a class of their own in 92, because they had ride height technology, etc.

Are you suggesting that other teams copy that or come up with something better?

I'm not sure many car manufacturers would go for something that is always a moving target. These days, they require to have rules that are somewhat more stable than you are suggesting in order for them to think it worthwhile being in the sport in the first place.

It's also something of an urban myth that car manufacturers always want to go their own way with regards to F1 engine regulations in particular. The car manufacturers, the FIA and the teams, all got together to draw up the engine regulations for 2014.

The regulations are a compromise between what some car manufacturers want and what other car manufacturers want. They all have a reasonable chance of spending money on coming up with something that is competitive, rather than spending money on something that doesn't work, and either forces them to spend more money to correct it or, as seems more likely, leave F1 and also leave teams without an engine supply that will readily fit their chassis.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

So we're back to your original point about why the rule came to exist. The rule came to exist because it stopped teams from building qualifying specials. The rules could not have been introduced to hinder any one team, only to hinder any teams that had the resources to build a qualifying special.

The FIA apparently thought qualifying cars were one of the main reason for the lack of excitement, but that turned out to be untrue. As one could have expected.

Let's imagine for a moment that the FIA said at the end of 2011: The regulations are thus: A wheel at each corner and one motive power unit. How long do you think it will be before the protests start flying in?

I fail to see the point you would like to make.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Are you suggesting that other teams copy that or come up with something better?

Yes. Beat the other team on merit, not by making their car illegal.

agree with miatanut completely

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by miatanut

That's been my tune for years. I would define the "fuel limit" as kilojoules. Any fuel type you like (provided the exhaust it generates isn't any more toxic than normal road car exhaust).

What we have now is what you get when you have excessive limits aimed at protecting the status quo.

If you have an energy limit, safety rules, rules aimed at preventing use of very expensive and exotic materials/manufacturing processes, and an overall vehicle width (so there is room to pass) there would be a very interesting technical arms race, like what we used to have.

If somebody has kinetic energy recovery, exhaust gas energy recovery, engine coolant energy recovery and as a result has a car that can go like stink, to where there are significant safety concerns, you simply lower the energy value to go the distance and, presto!, the speed gets reduced. You don't need reams of aerodynamic rules to do the job.

Downforce would get reduced because the emphasis would move more toward drag reduction. Because the rules are very open, there isn't a well-worn path to the optimum solution so the cars would have different capabilities, encouraging passing. Somebody will come up with a solution which is better than the others, until somebody else comes up with something nobody else thought of and takes over.

You would also get the interesting 'last of the old beats the first of the new' effect we used to get.

Originally Posted by wnut

No arguments, although banning exotic materials again stunts the development. Turbines - love turbines!

I agree with wnut here. But what exactly constitute the 'free' engine rules? Does it also constitute the freedom to develop, to change and use - hence no 'engine freeze', no rule limiting the number of engines to eight per season, prohibiting driver aids such as traction control or banning technologies which make driver aids simply unnecessary? And do 'free' regulations only apply to the power plant or the entire drive-train, including the gearbox?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

hmmm....define "normal road car exhaust".

The starting point would be EU automobile exhaust standards. Because the teams might try some really exotic energy sources with lots of poisonous things in the exhaust, probably there would need to be additional regulations on maximum PPM of known carcinogens, endocrine system disrupters. Maybe a maximum greenhouse gas emission limit equivalent to gasoline/petrol.

Originally Posted by Marbot

In most respects, the 2014 regulations answer most of those questions.

I don't think so. Do they allow you to run a gas turbine or hydrogen fuel cell? Can the car have eight wheels? Or they still regulating engine displacement, number of cylinders, "V" angles , fuel type?

I'm talking about an energy limit, safety regulations, vehicle width (for passing), and something aimed at keeping costs from getting completely crazy, and other than that, 'go to it boys!'

I'd show up with a car that had a rudder in the front to help it turn at high speed and maybe some big skids on the bottom (kind of like street car brakes, but much larger), which would make the thing stop at like 4G all the way to zero MPH. If I do the braking skids, I can't recovery that energy, so I'd be at a disadvantage to another team that is recovering their braking energy, so maybe I make it a rubber conveyor belt on the bottom of the car to capture it. You have sufficiently open rules, and people will try all kinds of funky stuff. The way it is now, everybody gets funneled into a narrow set of parameters, the cars all end up looking like clones, it's tough for anybody to pass, and a lot of the fun gets taken out of it. With the kind of rules I'm talking about, there would be some ugly cars. CanAm was full of ugly cars, but they were interesting.

Originally Posted by Marbot

What you also seem to be suggesting is that one team will always be favourite to win a championship in a typical year, because they came up with the best solution. For example, Williams were in a class of their own in 92, because they had ride height technology, etc.

Are you suggesting that other teams copy that or come up with something better?

I'm not sure many car manufacturers would go for something that is always a moving target. These days, they require to have rules that are somewhat more stable than you are suggesting in order for them to think it worthwhile being in the sport in the first place.

It's also something of an urban myth that car manufacturers always want to go their own way with regards to F1 engine regulations in particular. The car manufacturers, the FIA and the teams, all got together to draw up the engine regulations for 2014.

The regulations are a compromise between what some car manufacturers want and what other car manufacturers want. They all have a reasonable chance of spending money on coming up with something that is competitive, rather than spending money on something that doesn't work, and either forces them to spend more money to correct it or, as seems more likely, leave F1 and also leave teams without an engine supply that will readily fit their chassis.

Yes, the team that comes up with the best solution will completely dominate until the others can come up with a good imitation. Meanwhile, in secret, somebody is working on a new idea that makes the current solution completely obsolete. That's what racing is supposed to be about to me. It's the most wasteful thing people do short of going to war. It should be more than just entertainment. It should be an incubator of new ideas in the pressure cooker of competition. As fans, we would get taken back to the fun times of the 1970's.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I agree with wnut here. But what exactly constitute the 'free' engine rules? Does it also constitute the freedom to develop, to change and use - hence no 'engine freeze', no rule limiting the number of engines to eight per season, prohibiting driver aids such as traction control or banning technologies which make driver aids simply unnecessary? And do 'free' regulations only apply to the power plant or the entire drive-train, including the gearbox?

Free engine rules, free chassis rules, free aero rules, free energy source, free, free, free. The energy limit becomes the way to get speeds under control when cars start doing 250 on the straight. Oddly enough, with drag increasing in proportion to the square of the speed, what you would really want is a car that doesn't have a really high top speed, and conserves more of that in the corners, which has been the direction of the last couple decades, but the last couple decades you could throw away a lot of energy on drag and you would have to put more emphasis on being more efficient. On the other hand, since movable aero devices would be allowed, the cars might significantly change configuration between the straight and the braking and turning zones. In the interest of safety, maybe you have a rule that if you use a movable aero device and it fails, you can't use that device any more. That would encourage the engineers to get it right in the first place.

There does need to be something aimed at keeping costs from getting crazy out of control.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I don't think so. Do they allow you to run a gas turbine or hydrogen fuel cell? Can the car have eight wheels? Or they still regulating engine displacement, number of cylinders, "V" angles , fuel type?

Good luck with regard to parity! And you'll need more than just the FIA to police that little lot. It also wouldn't be too long before you felt the need to write a bunch of regulations just to stop all the protests being thrown around.

The FIA currently have a problem with some teams not liking what Mercedes are doing with their rear wing. Imagine that x 100.

Originally Posted by miatanut

I'm talking about an energy limit, safety regulations, vehicle width (for passing), and something aimed at keeping costs from getting completely crazy, and other than that, 'go to it boys!'

You mean like, a budget cap?

Originally Posted by miatanut

I'd show up with a car that had a rudder in the front to help it turn at high speed and maybe some big skids on the bottom (kind of like street car brakes, but much larger), which would make the thing stop at like 4G all the way to zero MPH. If I do the braking skids, I can't recovery that energy, so I'd be at a disadvantage to another team that is recovering their braking energy, so maybe I make it a rubber conveyor belt on the bottom of the car to capture it. You have sufficiently open rules, and people will try all kinds of funky stuff. The way it is now, everybody gets funneled into a narrow set of parameters, the cars all end up looking like clones, it's tough for anybody to pass, and a lot of the fun gets taken out of it. With the kind of rules I'm talking about, there would be some ugly cars. CanAm was full of ugly cars, but they were interesting.

Again, good luck with parity.

I think that it should be the racing that's interesting. People don't want two cars turning up at each race that are seconds faster than anything else. Maybe you do? I don't know.

Originally Posted by miatanut

Yes, the team that comes up with the best solution will completely dominate until the others can come up with a good imitation. Meanwhile, in secret, somebody is working on a new idea that makes the current solution completely obsolete. That's what racing is supposed to be about to me. It's the most wasteful thing people do short of going to war. It should be more than just entertainment. It should be an incubator of new ideas in the pressure cooker of competition. As fans, we would get taken back to the fun times of the 1970's.

The stand-out word in that particular paragraph is 'wasteful'. It's not what F1 wants to be seen as in the current economic climate, or any other economic climate, come to that.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Good luck with regard to parity!

Ah! There we have the key to the whole thing. In F1, I don't think there should be such a thing as parity. Parity is for lower level series. F1 should be about who can build the best mouse trap. I don't care if the best team wins by two laps. In the old days, if a Lotus finished, it was going to be way ahead. Or both would break. I loved that.

Originally Posted by Marbot

You mean like, a budget cap?

I would say more or less unlimited technical rules combined with a budget cap would be ideal. When you get into developing new power sources, the R&D costs can be staggering. For an auto manufacturer trying to develop something they might adapt for their road cars, it might make sense to make that investment. For a privateer, it's unobtainable. Maybe you have a budget cap, manufacturers are free to develop exotic new power sources in their road car division and use it on their F1 car, but they have to sell that system to any privateer who wants it for a reasonable cost. Then you get into the problem of making sure they are selling the exact same system they are using on their own cars, but F1 is always going to have challenges in scrutineering.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Free engine rules, free chassis rules, free aero rules, free energy source, free, free, free. The energy limit becomes the way to get speeds under control when cars start doing 250 on the straight. Oddly enough, with drag increasing in proportion to the square of the speed, what you would really want is a car that doesn't have a really high top speed, and conserves more of that in the corners, which has been the direction of the last couple decades, but the last couple decades you could throw away a lot of energy on drag and you would have to put more emphasis on being more efficient. On the other hand, since movable aero devices would be allowed, the cars might significantly change configuration between the straight and the braking and turning zones. In the interest of safety, maybe you have a rule that if you use a movable aero device and it fails, you can't use that device any more. That would encourage the engineers to get it right in the first place.

There does need to be something aimed at keeping costs from getting crazy out of control.

Although you proposal receives my sympathy and should not be rejected directly. A thoroughly consideration about Formula 1's nature is required before implementation of your proposal, as it implies the (re-)legalization of driver aids and technologies that have an overlap with driver aids, can be used as a driver aid or make driver aids simply unnecessary. One could think of active suspensions, active aerodynamics, energy recovery systems and continuously variable transmissions.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I don't care if the best team wins by two laps.

Unfortunately for you, Bernie does care if the best team wins by two laps. Even now, with the technical regulations that we have, it's still possible for one team to make all of the other teams look really silly. This is why all of the manufacturers/teams have agreed to a stable set of regulations for 2014. No one wants to look silly at the beginning of a season when they've realised that perhaps the W24 twin turbo petrol engined car that they've come up with isn't really a patch on someone else's privately entered diesel powered car. Perhaps diesel power isn't really what they, as a company, are trying to sell? Can you imagine Ferrari entering a diesel powered car? Or any kind of engine other than a petrol driven one.

Originally Posted by miatanut

I would say more or less unlimited technical rules combined with a budget cap would be ideal.

Agreed. But you may still have a problem with your "unlimited technical rules" for the reasons I have already stated.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Although you proposal receives my sympathy and should not be rejected directly. A thoroughly consideration about Formula 1's nature is required before implementation of your proposal, as it implies the (re-)legalization of driver aids and technologies that have an overlap with driver aids, can be used as a driver aid or make driver aids simply unnecessary. One could think of active suspensions, active aerodynamics, energy recovery systems and continuously variable transmissions.

Yes. Should it be the ultimate test of driver, or the ultimate test of technology? Being a designer, for me, it should be the ultimate test of technology, which would mean all manner of driver aids could come back under an unlimited technology approach. I think F1 has become a bit like NASCAR, just not so laughably so.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Unfortunately for you, Bernie does care if the best team wins by two laps. Even now, with the technical regulations that we have, it's still possible for one team to make all of the other teams look really silly. This is why all of the manufacturers/teams have agreed to a stable set of regulations for 2014. No one wants to look silly at the beginning of a season when they've realised that perhaps the W24 twin turbo petrol engined car that they've come up with isn't really a patch on someone else's privately entered diesel powered car. Perhaps diesel power isn't really what they, as a company, are trying to sell? Can you imagine Ferrari entering a diesel powered car? Or any kind of engine other than a petrol driven one.

I eagerly await the day Bernie is gone even more than I eagerly awaited the day Jean Marie Balestre would be gone!

Like I say, the rules are the way they are now to protect the status quo.

I'm not saying the rules should change every year. Maybe the energy allowance would go down a little every year as teams achieve more efficiency/speed, but they should otherwise stay the same. If there are significant safety concerns related to an approach, something should be done about that. Otherwise the rules would stay the same. It's teams coming up with clever new solutions that would drive the changes to the cars from year to year.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Yes. Should it be the ultimate test of driver, or the ultimate test of technology? Being a designer, for me, it should be the ultimate test of technology, which would mean all manner of driver aids could come back under an unlimited technology approach. I think F1 has become a bit like NASCAR, just not so laughably so.

F1's certainly become very homogenous and decafinated; not the sport I first followed back in the '70s.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Yes. Should it be the ultimate test of driver, or the ultimate test of technology? Being a designer, for me, it should be the ultimate test of technology, which would mean all manner of driver aids could come back under an unlimited technology approach.

While, in principle, I've agreed with most of your views on this thread, particularly this point...

Originally Posted by miatanut

In F1, I don't think there should be such a thing as parity. Parity is for lower level series

...I think you're wasting your time nowadays. With the exception of Sports-Protoypes (only at Le Mans, maybe also Daytona), it's completely pointless to use F1 for a technology crusade now. I mean, it's been 18 years since the FIA were forced to implement rules to, in effect, get rid of the Williams FW14/B/15C, yet, technologies that were on this car and made it phenomenal are still not mainstream, or cheap. So, what's the point of using F1, in particular, as a test bed for further innovation, in 2012?

Originally Posted by miatanut

I think F1 has become a bit like NASCAR, just not so laughably so.

With the possible exception of the Le Mans 24 hour, I fail to see how all top-level circuit racing won't, eventually, go down this path. Circuit racing has become too easy for constructors/manufacturers these days. Looks like you may need to follow a different class of motorsport, Cross Country Rallying for one.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Yes. Should it be the ultimate test of driver, or the ultimate test of technology? Being a designer, for me, it should be the ultimate test of technology, which would mean all manner of driver aids could come back under an unlimited technology approach. I think F1 has become a bit like NASCAR, just not so laughably so.

I have my reservations regarding your proposal. If driver aids, including electronic stability control, are to be (re-)legalized, it is certainly not unthinkable the difference in driving skills will render. A couple of years it was rumoured that the FIA was considering the introduction of electronic stability control and it raised not incomprehensibly a lot of controversy.[1]
However, an referral to an article written by the Norwegian marketing professor should be made.[2] In 2000, he argued in favour of all-weather tyres and driver aids, stating '[a]s for traction control and anti-lock brakes, why shouldn't they be allowed? They are available on virtually all street cars, and they may offer some safety advantages for drivers, particularly when tyre width will likely be reduced to allow all-season tyres to work reasonably well in the rain. Because of the less effective tyres, traction control systems will need to be designed to allow moderate wheel spin so that drivers can steer with the throttle, as very severe electronic control would likely result in much slower lap times.' To me - as lawyer, not a technician and thus layman on this subject - it absolutely makes sense. Though, Michael Schumacher warned for self-learning systems.[3]

I do not think electronic systems taking over the driving completely are desirable. Formula 1 is, in contrast with the Le Mans Prototype Series, found and intended as the ultimate drivers' test. However, only moderately working driver aids are acceptable to me. But I do not believe a fuel consumption regulations is adequate to create the circumstances in which only those driver aids are beneficial. Instead, I would rather choose for light, relatively over-powered cars lacking a sufficient amount of adhesion. Therefore I propose the introduction of an absolute downforce limit, non-standardized all-weather tyres and the prohibition of tyre changes.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/moto...ne/6447171.stm
[2] http://atlasf1.autosport.com/2000/spn/olson.html
[3] http://www.fia.com/resources/documen..._Framework.pdf

[Marbot]

First of all, we should ask each manufacturer/team what is relevant about F1 that means that it's worthwhile doing for them. Because, what makes sense to Mercedes, may not make much sense to Caterham.

An F1 engine that makes sense to Renault may not make much sense to Ferrari, even though they know that it makes more sense on the track. When Ferrari used turbo F1 engines in the past, it wasn't because they wanted to (they would have much preferred to have used their beloved 12 cylinder engine), it's because they had to. I would certainly doubt that they would ever want to use a diesel engine in F1. Certainly it's true that Dr Mario Theissen (BMW), when asked about engine development, said that he would never have allowed a diesel engined F1 car to be built, even if it proved to be the best option. It was to be a petrol engine or nothing.

But anyway, the current trend seems to be towards small capacity turbocharged petrol/diesel engines (Ford Focus 1.0l petrol turbo, for example). In fact, anything with a turbo seems to be necessary these days in order to pass the current emission tests in most countries.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Can you imagine Ferrari entering a diesel powered car? Or any kind of engine other than a petrol driven one.

So what in 50 years Ferrari will still be pounding round with a petrol v8/6 ?

I dont think so, we cant freeze the series to a moment in time as it will just become a "classic" series.

As you say above, all the teams have different goals, why not let them each develop their own way. If Ferrari use 8 times more fuel than anybody else than tough, improve your tech or change it.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

So what in 50 years Ferrari will still be pounding round with a petrol v8/6 ?

I dont think so, we cant freeze the series to a moment in time as it will just become a "classic" series.

In 50 years time, F1 may be as different again as it was 50 years ago. Will there be petrol engines? Who knows? It may not even exist as a sport at all. It may be that the technology of the future does not lend itself particularly well to any form of 'motorsport'.

It has always been said that motorsport will be the last bastion of the internal combustion engine. Maybe that saying will prove to be true? Ferrari will certainly hope so, because they seem so against anything to the contrary. If they were a high volume car producer, they would have already had to change their thinking.

In 2014 we will have V6 petrol turbo F1 engines with energy recovery systems (ERS) in a world that will increasingly be seeing a lot of car manufacturers introducing fully electric vehicles into their model range (I've driven a few and they're really quite surprising!). Perhaps there's a way of making electric motors sound 'sexy'?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Can you imagine Ferrari entering a diesel powered car? Or any kind of engine other than a petrol driven one.

In 1994 no-one could imagine Ferrari entering with a V10-engine. Two years later though, they did and from 1999 they started winning world championships with that configuration.
Three years ago nobody could imagine Ferrari coming-up with a hybrid road car. However, last year they came up with such a 'green' car. Things are not that static as you seem to suppose, Marbot.