BBC "Exclusive": Pat Head & Rory Byrne propose "biggest ... change since 1983" in '13

[Tim the Grey]

I have quoted Gilles here before...

"Take of the aero, and give me more power...!"

He hated the silly cars from 1981ish, with hydraulic suspensions.
If you want overtaking, look to the likes of Formula Ford, where it's pretty much ALL mechanical grip. Limit that by reducing tyre size, and then you don't need silly carbon brakes. Seeing as they just lock up wheels when you use the things.

If you need the sponsor name on the rear wing, then make a standard front and rear 'wing' and offer them to teams, but limit their effectiveness.

Let's cut back the aero, and that stops teams running hideously expensive moving floor tunnels 24/7! It might even allow a driver to overtake another on the track...

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

"completely free engines" ?

Of course, to improve overall efficiency teams will seek for drag reduction.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Of course, to improve overall efficiency teams will seek for drag reduction.

That's not really answered the question.

Jet engines? Nuclear powered engines? Gas turbine engines? Runs really well on a part consumption of Pandas and Dolphins engines?

F1 teams will choose the engine type that best suits F1, and not necessarily because it's relevant to anything else.

But sometimes relevance is all that matters:

Salesmen..uh

An HRT engineer said about KERS yesterday:

“It is a fashionable green technology that helps to sell more [road] cars,” the former BMW engineer told Spanish website motor21.com. “It's inefficient, but the large manufacturers want it to sell their cars. A lot of the manufacturers want KERS as a tool of their marketing departments to justify their investments in F1.”

[E.B]

I believe that possibly its mainly inefficient in terms of F1 investment because the overly restrictive FIA regs relating to deployment, number of wheels KERS can be used in, restrictions re generation of KERS etc make it inefficient and too limited to be of road relevance.. Toyota claimed there was more KERS technology in a Prius than in an F1 setup.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by E.B

I believe that possibly its mainly inefficient in terms of F1 investment because the overly restrictive FIA regs relating to deployment, number of wheels KERS can be used in, restrictions re generation of KERS etc make it inefficient and too limited to be of road relevance.. Toyota claimed there was more KERS technology in a Prius than in an F1 setup.

The problem seems to be that if you get more power from KERS in F1, then you have to have correspondingly less from your primary power source. Otherwise we end up with cars that are once again, too fast.

[duke_toaster]

That isn't too much of a problem, provided costs are kept sensible and "the show" - and however you want to phrase it, it is important - is maintained. Another way to reduce straightline speed would be to increase drag somehow, of course.

[E.B]

Raise minimum height by a fair amount. I think I recall reading something about a 40mm minimum ride height would severely impact on downforce.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Another way to reduce straightline speed would be to increase drag somehow, of course.

If you increase drag, you therefore increase fuel consumption. Possibly not what is intended?

Perhaps it is that the intention is to go as quickly as possible by using as little fuel as possible? This will no doubt be a recurring theme in future FIA regulations.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

That's not really answered the question.

Jet engines? Nuclear powered engines? Gas turbine engines? Runs really well on a part consumption of Pandas and Dolphins engines?

F1 teams will choose the engine type that best suits F1, and not necessarily because it's relevant to anything else.

That could indeed be the case. So be it then.

Any way, free engines should not be equated with free fuel. Only commercially available and road-practical fuels should be allowed.

[Marbot]

Hold everything! Luca's not happy at all.

Someone let him have is V6 engines, please!

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/165787/...ntezemolo.html

[Sodemo]

I really dont think a series that isn't "F1" would work in the way he wants it to. A1GP used Ferrari engines in its last year(s), does the average man on the street know that, or even knows what A1GP is?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I really dont think a series that isn't "F1" would work in the way he wants it to. A1GP used Ferrari engines in its last year(s), does the average man on the street know that, or even knows what A1GP is?

I'm not sure that the "average man on the street" knows what the *+^& F1 is all about!

There will no doubt be those that want to stay as 'F1' too, which will no doubt only help to confuse matters.

Fortunately, it seems that Luca is currently on a one man crusade, and maybe it's also been raining a lot in Italy just lately.

[E.B]

Well it seems Luca has Bernie potentially on his side..... Bernie confirming concern that the new 4 cylinder turbos wont provide the required type or level of noise is a major concern to him.

"I don't care whether it's 1.6 or 1.8 litre engines - I'm worried about the sound," he is quoted by motorline.cc. "If we lose the sound of Formula One, we will be losing a great deal."

Niki Lauda agreed that he was worried about the sound, which in formula one has been so unique ... ''Hopefully there will be more than a faint hum."

I recall Niki Lauda perhaps jestfully citing the noise of a V8 Cosworth behind him after than many years of a 12 cylinder noise was part of his reason for quitting Brabham after he tried their next years car and announcing his retirement on the spot at the Canadian GP in 1979.

Certainly I for one miss the euphony of sound that a seventies grid provided in abundance.... mmmmm the sound of a Matra or BRM V12, plus all the other options rather than even the screech of the cacophony we now have. But even what we have now is on paper a better option than waht I and clearly others fear may happen.

To me the noise was always half of the appeal way back when, listening to the different notes for clues of what was about to appear in sight.

[wnut]

If F1 was being true to its apparent goal of developing technology then the best way of ensuring the development of technology would be to say you have x litres to complete a GP do it anyway you like. Maybe layout the dimensions of a cube the car must fit under and subject them to crash tests, if they pass they are in!
Then we would see the most efficient technology developed and the rubbish like KERS binned.

If you wish to have a genuine motor race then you have to ensure the cars can race one another.

[Marbot]

V12 1.6 litre turbos......hmmm

To some, the 'sound of F1' died with the introduction of the V8 2.4's. But for me it had already died at the end of 95 when the last V12 Ferrari was heard.

Superleague only do V12's. Maybe we should watch that instead?

[Pingguest]

The sound of the new engines may prove to be unpopular. However, in the 1980s no-one ever complained about the sound of the then-used turbo engines.

Originally Posted by wnut

If F1 was being true to its apparent goal of developing technology then the best way of ensuring the development of technology would be to say you have x litres to complete a GP do it anyway you like. Maybe layout the dimensions of a cube the car must fit under and subject them to crash tests, if they pass they are in!
Then we would see the most efficient technology developed and the rubbish like KERS binned.

If you wish to have a genuine motor race then you have to ensure the cars can race one another.

I have much sympathy for the idea of a fuel (flow) formula. But an important question that needs answering is how relevant or innovative Formula 1 should be. For example, should different fuels (e.g. diesel, ethanol and methanol) be allowed alongside gasoline? Allowing different fuels could give some complications to the implementation of a fuel (flow) formula.

[Marbot]

TBH, I don't think that the vast majority of F1 fans give two hoots about what actually propels the cars around the track, as long as they are fast and make a decent noise.

If F1 were to implement the use of Superleagues 4.2 litre 750bhp V12 engines for the next few seasons, I don't think that you would have much complaint from most fans, but you would have complaints from the current engine manufacturers, and probably some moaning on forums.

We should blame the marketing people at Renault etc for the proposed new regulations. It is they who are insisting that what's out on track should mirror what's in road cars.

Maybe we should be more careful which boxes we tick when we fill in those F1 surveys?

[Pingguest]

I truly believe that Formula 1 can be relevant, but mandating a specific engine configuration and introducing a regulatory framework that provides an absolute point of perfection is the solution.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I truly believe that Formula 1 can be relevant, but mandating a specific engine configuration and introducing a regulatory framework that provides an absolute point of perfection is the solution.

If you mandate a single solution how do you develop technology?

It is only if the technologies compete and are developed that we can see which is ultimately the best. If the fuel is restricted, will a 1000cc turbo screamer be more effective than a 3000cc miller cycle engine with a turbo?
Could the teams more effectively capture the wasted energy into some other energy recovery system than the mandated stone age KERS.

Penalise systems that result in huge quantities of toxic metal products, like batteries and KERS for instance. How the heck are they sustainable?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

TBH, I don't think that the vast majority of F1 fans give two hoots about what actually propels the cars around the track, as long as they are fast and make a decent noise.

If F1 were to implement the use of Superleagues 4.2 litre 750bhp V12 engines for the next few seasons, I don't think that you would have much complaint from most fans, but you would have complaints from the current engine manufacturers, and probably some moaning on forums.

We should blame the marketing people at Renault etc for the proposed new regulations. It is they who are insisting that what's out on track should mirror what's in road cars.

Maybe we should be more careful which boxes we tick when we fill in those F1 surveys?

I think I will start paying some attention to the Superleagues series, it sounds good! I have not even seen one of their races, are they any good?

The 4.2 litre V12 sound; pardon the pun; the way to go imo.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

If you mandate a single solution how do you develop technology?

I mistyped.
I wanted to write: I truly believe that Formula 1 can be relevant, but mandating a specific engine configuration and introducing a regulatory framework that provides an absolute point of perfection is not the solution.

Quite incomprehensibly I'm not allowed to edit my post.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

I think I will start paying some attention to the Superleagues series, it sounds good! I have not even seen one of their races, are they any good?

The 4.2 litre V12 sound; pardon the pun; the way to go imo.

The Superleague series 'sounds' good, but appears to have a flawed concept. The cars represent soccer teams from around Europe. Attendences at these races are therefore, not unsurprisingly, poor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv_Qf...eature=related

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I mistyped.
I wanted to write: I truly believe that Formula 1 can be relevant, but mandating a specific engine configuration and introducing a regulatory framework that provides an absolute point of perfection is not the solution.

Quite incomprehensibly I'm not allowed to edit my post.

You had me worried there for a bit Pinguest!

Guess we are not allowed to edit posts after they are put up to stop people changing their arguments and positions retrospectively and hence making a forum argument incomprehensible.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The Superleague series 'sounds' good, but appears to have a flawed concept. The cars represent soccer teams from around Europe. Attendences at these races are therefore, not unsurprisingly, poor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv_Qf...eature=related

I read about the launch but never gave them much thought myself. The specs for the cars do sound good though. Thanks for the vid.

[duke_toaster]

If I understand correctly there is a ten or fifteen minute time limit for post edits.