Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto
I agree on the approach of a less complex formula. A few details to nitpick. Its my understanding that given modern understanding of friction, optimal combustion chamber size, etc. that a 12 cylinder engine would not be the first choice (it would sound lovely however). It would probably be a V8 or V10 solution. Unless a V12 was mandated. Also, given a target displacement, I think a V8 would probably be more compact than a V12. Last, I suspect we will continue with some type of Hybrid (KERS) solution.
Richard
|
I meant mandating a V12. Sounds muffler might be in order though. I agree a 3.0 V10 would suffice from an output point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut
I can see the point of the V6 Turbos in increasing vehicle efficiency and reducing pollution, the hybrid sytems however are not worth their weight in ballast, as RBR proved before the axle weights were mandated, and just add inefficiency to the cars.
Perhaps the way to slay the myth is set the minimum weight to 500kg without the drivers, mandate na V8s and allow any hybrid/KERS system that anyone wishes to add.
|
Even turbo's and KERS are not neccesarry in my view. The R&D has long been done, lessons have long been learned and use for the public road will soon evaporate. Forget about relevance, it won't be relevant in five years time.
Focus on: exciting, cheap and acceptable.