New regs ----good or bad for F1?

[Marbot]

All of that is true.

But even then, McLaren did still manage to win all but one race in the last season of the turbo era with their turbo car!

They (Honda) still had around 100bhp more than Cosworths latest V8 (About 700bhp compared to 600bhp for the 3.5 litre 'Cossie', which at the time revved to only 11,000rpm!) in race trim.

Creating a modern 650bhp 1600cc turbo(ed?) F1 engine with plenty of torque is not going to pose a problem.

Just need to see the tech regs to be sure.

[Bononi]

And hopefully there won't be any holes in the rules that one can take advantage.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Bononi

And hopefully there won't be any holes in the rules that one can take advantage.

Are you suggesting that the rules could be interpreted in such a way that one or more teams could find themselves ahead of the other teams come the start of the 2013 season? That would be most unusual.

[Bononi]

Indeed...

[Joe Taylor]

Originally Posted by Marbot

See that's where you're wrong. NA engines need revs, turbo engines need boost. 1.5 litre turbo's got 1500bhp from just 13,000rpm. So how much would a 'modern' 1 litre turbo(ed) F1 engine produce with the same boost at the same rpm? Do the math.

I was thinking more in terms of sound, but yes, performance wise you would want a high boost turbo. You would have to build the engine to stop the very high in-cylinder pressures from blowing it apart though.

[Sodemo]

I mourned the loss of V12 engines, then the loss of V10 engines. However, I don't really care much for the current V8 series, so yea, get rid of them, matters little to me, as the real sound of F1 are V10 - V12s.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I mourned the loss of V12 engines, then the loss of V10 engines. However, I don't really care much for the current V8 series, so yea, get rid of them, matters little to me, as the real sound of F1 are V10 - V12s.

You obviously have never heard a BRM V16 up close?

Here's a taster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZMPDCNyQxE&NR=1

Oh, and that's just 1.5 litres BTW!

The Superleague series still use 750bhp V12 4.2 litre engines (awesome sound at the start of a race). But for how much longer, I don't know.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Joe Taylor

I was thinking more in terms of sound, but yes, performance wise you would want a high boost turbo. You would have to build the engine to stop the very high in-cylinder pressures from blowing it apart though.

Well if we assume that a 1 litre turbo can produce 1000bhp with the same boost that the 1.5 litre engines did. Then we can also assume that a relatively mildly tuned one developing 650bhp wouldn't be a problem.

Yes the noise won't be the same, but I think that Yamaha's cross plane cranked straight four is up there with the best when it comes to spine tingling noises, and that's only half the capacity of the 2013 F1 engine.

Ironically, MotoGP are going back to the bigger 1000cc engines for the 2012 season, but will probably still be limited to 21 litres of fuel.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

So you suggest that engine manufacturers (very different to "teams") can use unlimited resources to arrive at what everyone else will arrive at faster than if there wasn't a resource restriction?

No, I suggested the opposite:
"The solution is to get rid of a legal framework in which there's only one absolute solution."

These days they will arrive at a configuration 'solution' very quickly anyway, since it's possible for engine manufacturers to design, build and run different types of engines without ever having to move away from their lap top screens.

Of course, manufactures could use computer simulations to determine the best strategy and hence engine configuration. However, if the rules don't provide one absolute solution, no computer simulations will solve the issue, as those are designed by humans.

[Peralta]

Why not also decrease the size of the brake discs to lengthen braking distances to promote more passing that way drivers have more room to make passes before the apex. Maybe they can do simulations asto the correct size to get the desired distance say back to they were before carbon was introduced. Or going back to 2-4 piston calipers which is what the majority of production cars run.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

No, I suggested the opposite:
"The solution is to get rid of a legal framework in which there's only one absolute solution."

Of course, manufactures could use computer simulations to determine the best strategy and hence engine configuration. However, if the rules don't provide one absolute solution, no computer simulations will solve the issue, as those are designed by humans.

I think that the latter part of this article pretty much sums up the new engine situation at present.

Interview with Mark Gallagher of Cosworth.

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=42676

It's all about money in the end.

[Gingers4Justice]

My response to all these regulations is that they are bad, bad, bad.

Formula One needs a revolution if it's going to be exciting again. The racing is going to be unbelievably artificial - and that's if they work.

Overtaking was, is, and always will be easier in slower cars. A one-second gap between two cars at 100 mph is twice as short in terms of car lenghts than 2 cars at 200 mph.

The cars need to slow down, there should be less aero dynamics, and the cars should be designed for the circuits, not the other way round.

The only good thing is the engine regs. Even 1.6l turbo-charged 4 cylinders will sound better than the current cars.

Rant over....for now.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

The racing is going to be unbelievably artificial - and that's if they work.

Well the artificial racing should go hand-in-hand with the ban on the banning of team orders. At least we can be sure of some overtaking one way or another. It could be that 2011 will see overtaking on an almost epic scale.

TBH I'm quite looking forward to seeing how all these new things are going to play out across 20 races. The potential for mistakes and failures is now even greater.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I think that the latter part of this article pretty much sums up the new engine situation at present.

Interview with Mark Gallagher of Cosworth.

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=42676

It's all about money in the end.

If you would like something good to read, I strongly advice to read this document below. The author had an article published in Racecar Engineering recently.
http://www.divergentgovernance.co.uk/download.html

[Bononi]

Aren't we going to wait for the new regs to be pusblished on FIA website ?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

If you would like something good to read, I strongly advice to read this document below. The author had an article published in Racecar Engineering recently.
http://www.divergentgovernance.co.uk/download.html

Yep. Already read that.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything written therein, but it's never going to happen whilst ever certain teams have a say in what rules should and shouldn't be. Don't think for one minute that the likes of Ferrari would read that article and agree with it wholeheartedly. It would, at a stroke, put them on a level pegging with everyone else.

A standout sentence was: "Motorsport needs to drop the pretence of technological righteousness as the be all and end all and if it wishes to continue to exist it must find something else to do."

The power to weight ratio system makes a lot of sense.

[frostie]

I'm fairly positive on the engine regs change. The way I look at it is that since 1989 we have basically had the same engine-high capacity normally aspirated units. By my reckoning by 2013 this will be the longest period of stability in engine philosophy. We all talk of F1 being at the pinnacle but by the law of diminishing returns I would imagine we have already reached the apex of these engines and there are few breakthroughs to be found.

The new rules will see the return of turbos and put F1 back at the "cutting edge." It's clear that manufacturers are going to comparable engines so this will show once more the benefits of racing to breed the latest technologies.

The movable rear wing is, for my mind, crazy. Why bring in artificial methods such as this, it adds nothing technologically and is quite gimmicky. There was talk earlier in the year of ground effect why not utilise that instead. We would see an increase in grip that is not badly affected by the dirty air in front of the car. It would have been a win-win solution in my mind and led to better racing where overtaking would be possible but not too easy which could be the case if the movable wing is too efective

[gttouring]

i really don't mind small capacities for engines, i would like more cylinder options, let that be the variable...
the BRM.....drool

[Tim the Grey]

I have Into the Red, written by Mark Hales, and Nick Mason, taking Nick's cars out for a spin. This also included a CD soundtrack for each car.

Nick at the time had a BRM. Listening to that thing doing a complete lap of Donington is, well, something else.

He's since sold it, as it scared him. Lots. Same reason Tom wheatcoft sold his...

As to the debate here? Give the teams X Kilojoules, for a race distance. Let them work it out... Whatever, however, they use that energy is up to them, within certain safety limits.

[Marbot]

These are the 2011 technical and sporting regulations:

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public...10-12-2010.pdf

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public...10-12-2010.pdf

[jab]

I'm glad they're finally clarifying the driving rules. Hopefully that should stop any of this edging of drivers to the edge of the track

[Marbot]

Here's an interesting one:

"If the race is suspended and cannot be re-started, thirty seconds will be added to the elapsed time of any driver who was unable to use both specifications of dry-weather tyre during the race."

One worth thinking about for circuits such as Sepang etc.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Here's an interesting one:

"If the race is suspended and cannot be re-started, thirty seconds will be added to the elapsed time of any driver who was unable to use both specifications of dry-weather tyre during the race."

One worth thinking about for circuits such as Sepang etc.

Oh dear... So if a race is started and only 10 laps completed (the race shouldn't count for anything though) then anyone who did not change the tyre to the other spec is docked 30 seconds.....

How daft is that. Why even try to regulate anything like that in such a punitive way?
It does show us the mentality of the people who make F1 rules though.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Oh dear... So if a race is started and only 10 laps completed (the race shouldn't count for anything though) then anyone who did not change the tyre to the other spec is docked 30 seconds.....

As you say, there is a minimum distance to be completed before any points can be awarded. It's two laps.

"If a race is suspended under Article 41, and cannot be resumed, no points will be awarded if the leader has completed less than two laps, half points will be awarded if the leader has completed more than two laps but less than 75% of the original race distance and full points will be awarded if the leader has completed more than 75% of the original race distance."

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Yep. Already read that.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything written therein, but it's never going to happen whilst ever certain teams have a say in what rules should and shouldn't be. Don't think for one minute that the likes of Ferrari would read that article and agree with it wholeheartedly. It would, at a stroke, put them on a level pegging with everyone else.

A standout sentence was: "Motorsport needs to drop the pretence of technological righteousness as the be all and end all and if it wishes to continue to exist it must find something else to do."

The power to weight ratio system makes a lot of sense.

For Formula 1 the author proposes a hybrid parametric framework. I can't see why that shouldn't be adopted. In fact, with the refuelling ban Formula 1 took a step towards it.