|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
11 Aug 2011, 18:36 (Ref:2938610) | #26 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
This part of the article sums it all up for me. “If you want to have more horsepower, you simply need to have more efficiency. Instead of the current race situation where there might be some periods in which you have to compromise between fuel efficiency and power, in this regulation there will be no compromise – you have to work on efficiency. You will have this amount of fuel and you will need to extract the maximum horsepower from that and you do that by efficiency." “With a fuel limit, you will push the engineers to work hard on lean mixtures, on very efficient combustion, because they want to have more horsepower for that amount of fuel,” he adds. “Maybe they will work on ignition, or spray-guided combustion, the work of the turbocharger. For the teams, the huge reward will be when you have 1 per cent more efficiency than someone else, and the immediate translation will be that you have more horsepower,” he added. “This will be the game, which is very different to today where you may have more horsepower, but with higher fuel consumption." |
||
|
12 Aug 2011, 15:03 (Ref:2938952) | #27 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,126
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn. Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain. |
12 Aug 2011, 15:44 (Ref:2938964) | #28 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
||
|
23 Aug 2011, 15:46 (Ref:2944714) | #29 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Sam Michael (Williams) explains reasoning for strict 2014 regulations.
http://www.pitpass.com/44484-Michael...er-regulations I would have to go along with that. |
|
|
25 Aug 2011, 00:30 (Ref:2945402) | #30 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Oh well nice to know there is still a series that is all about speed and power.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93782 The MotoGP guys seem completely miserable a about getting back to 1000cc bikes! |
|
|
25 Aug 2011, 13:46 (Ref:2945656) | #31 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
They have regs that are just as restrictive: 2012 - Maximum engine capacity increased to 1000cc, with a limit of 4 cylinders and a maximum 81mm cylinder bore. The limit on the bore is just as important (and limiting) as the limit on the bore is in F1 engines. |
||
|
25 Aug 2011, 14:17 (Ref:2945676) | #32 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
9 Sep 2011, 15:40 (Ref:2953189) | #33 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,193
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
9 Sep 2011, 18:42 (Ref:2953284) | #34 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
The FIA can barely control the teams innovations as it is. I would hate to think what sort of a mess a 'clean sheet' would get it into! |
||
|
10 Sep 2011, 00:31 (Ref:2953383) | #35 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 252
|
So from 2014, Formula 1 shall be known as Formula Sensible! Innovative designers need not apply ! !
The rot has already set in as is clearly seen by the rising stocks of Historic racing world wide. Festival events such as Goodwood & Laguna Seca are pulling larger crowds than some F1 races. Simple reason: the diversity of the sight & sound show where some of the cars are treated like rock stars......& why?.....because innovative designers created these works of art (still within the scope of the rule book!.....most of the time!), meaning each had their own personality & charisma. This also gave the designers themselves a name in history, Chapman, Murray, Ducarouge, Barnard etc....& Newey of course. As new designers filter through, their names will be meaningless as all they can do is follow the recipe in the increasingly strict cook book! It's human nature to prefer a smorgasbord, rather than baked beans every 2nd weekend! . |
||
|
10 Sep 2011, 00:57 (Ref:2953387) | #36 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
|
||
|
10 Sep 2011, 01:44 (Ref:2953394) | #37 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
||
|
10 Sep 2011, 03:02 (Ref:2953396) | #38 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 252
|
see below
Last edited by Oran Park Forever; 10 Sep 2011 at 03:11. Reason: did it twice. |
||
|
10 Sep 2011, 03:09 (Ref:2953397) | #39 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 252
|
Well, turbo charging should be freed up as the technology is far more advanced than the original turbo era ie: symmetrical twin turbos etc so give the designers a choice. But that would upset the ones that can't make their turbo as powerful or fuel efficient so we can't have that can we?!?!?! Then there is the V angle. Is it not enough already that they specify how many cylinders? Now they demand an across the board V angle. History shows that the shape & design of the engine largely dictated what chassis designers could create......& visa verse. For example: Chapman utilised the shape of the Cosworth's exhaust system to create the ground effect chassis.......leaving Ferrari's flat 12 in the dark ages (at the time). The ground effect era ran for years. Then came the flat bottom rule & once again, designers found ways to overcome the lack of chassis downforce by 'being creative' yet still within the rule book. ie: Postlethwaite's adheadral wing, Oatley's 5 arch diffuser (ended up being too effective for the rest of the car!) Now, as soon as a designer 'gets creative' & comes up with a blown or double diffuser, or forward exiting exhaust, the FIA croonies stomp on it, almost in the way a teacher gives the naughty kid afternoon detention for speaking his mind. They've created this "Sensible Monster" themselves so it's no surprise the new engine rules are as strict as the rest of the game. . |
||
|
10 Sep 2011, 09:53 (Ref:2953452) | #40 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,193
|
Since when is it required to prevent teams from innovating any way? Allowing teams to introduce complete new innovations are usually the cheapest way to gain performances.
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
10 Sep 2011, 10:48 (Ref:2953459) | #41 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Engine suppliers also have to supply more than one team, so it's no good building a 60 degree engine for one team if all your other customers have built a chassis for a 120 degree engine. Should they make two engines or spend a lot less cash and find a compromise that everyone can buy and use? Are PURE currently starting work on a turbo engine that won't fit anyone's car in 2014? No, because they have been given a set of regulations to work from, thus saving themselves and anyone else from an embarrassing situation. Blown diffusers aren't exactly new, neither was the double diffuser or the forward exiting exhausts. They were all things that were already known to F1, but managed to find some way of creeping back in. |
||
|
10 Sep 2011, 11:10 (Ref:2953472) | #42 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
In order for teams to go forward with some things, they will first of all have to go backwards with some other things. |
||
|
10 Sep 2011, 14:35 (Ref:2953522) | #43 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 252
|
Quote:
I guess the designers will have to be content with out doing each other in the "Portable Taj Mahal" race for the largest, most elaborate & expensive paddock facility......I figure their design budget had to go somewhere! . |
|||
|
10 Sep 2011, 15:18 (Ref:2953529) | #44 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 819
|
I believe it was the IRL, of all formulae,which stipulated the location of the front engine mounts.This gave some freedom to the designers and ensured that engines from different suppliers were interchangeable.
Why not free things up a bit;even the cylinder bore is tightly controlled under the new proposals.As for spiralling costs,the FIA have caused a lot of this with their insistence on KERS and then limiting the output,truly a zero sum game as everybody gets there in the end and the only advantage goes to those who achieve the best result a bit sooner and it gets wiped out when the others catch up.Has a sensible way to recycle KERS batteries been developed yet?Surely it would be of greater benefit to racing to apply the resource restriction agreement to the creation of gargantuan motorhomes/brand centres and use the saving to develop advanced cars. In the previous turbo era we had inline fours,V6's and V8's with one or two turbos and there was a V6 with two turbos and a centrifugal supercharger almost ready to race,before the backers decided to do other things.What are we to look forward to this time-clones from an FIA blueprint. |
|
|
10 Sep 2011, 18:21 (Ref:2953575) | #45 | |||||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
14 Sep 2011, 20:13 (Ref:2955615) | #46 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,193
|
The FIA has done an absolutely superb job when it comes to eliminating any innovation by the engines, tyres, electronics and transmissions. Despite the aerodynamics already being semi-standardized, only in this area innovations are to some extent still possible.
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
14 Sep 2011, 23:12 (Ref:2955682) | #47 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
The mere sight of the words 'electric motor' are now already enough to put your average F1 fan into deep shock. The words 'in-line four' had already done that. Whatever it is that you want, there will always be compromises to be made. |
||
|
16 Sep 2011, 13:49 (Ref:2956413) | #48 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,193
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
16 Sep 2011, 16:07 (Ref:2956461) | #49 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
What Ferrari had also realised was that there was no way any kind of 8-12 cylinder NA engine could compete with an in-line four turbo, particularly if you have a specified amount of fuel to use. If you have engine builders like Ferrari and Renault in the sport, and only one of them is selling road cars to customers that actually care about fuel economy and efficiency, then some sort of compromise has to be made. Renault wouldn't want to build a V12, even if it was the best way of being first at the flag, and Ferrari wouldn't want to build an in-line four, even if that was the best way of being first at the flag. Ferrari would almost certainly not want to be in F1 if it couldn't use an engine that appealed to its customers. Compromises have to be made. The manufacturers are mainly concerned with the current expense in the sport. Opening up the regulations (aero, engine, chassis) will only accelerate that. And you only have to look at what's going in in BTCC (turbos vs non-turbos) to know that keeping everyone in parity would be a total nightmare if the regulations were any more open than they are already. Last edited by Marbot; 16 Sep 2011 at 16:15. |
||
|
16 Sep 2011, 17:36 (Ref:2956501) | #50 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,193
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FF1600 Engine regulations | HH Tech | Club Level Single Seaters | 1 | 22 Jan 2007 11:20 |
Restrictive Practices | Steve Wilkinson | Motorsport History | 12 | 22 Dec 2004 04:56 |
Are the new engine rules too restrictive? | Adam43 | Formula One | 7 | 31 Oct 2004 16:54 |
Engine Regulations could bring new teams! | Invincible | Touring Car Racing | 14 | 29 Oct 2001 19:50 |
Q. How restrictive is the pop off valve? | Robin Plummer | ChampCar World Series | 6 | 8 Jun 2000 14:54 |