Slowmula one - Page 2

SpawnyWhippet · 16 Nov 2005, 05:15 (Ref:1461969)

they will stay for a few years, then Ferrari will lobby to be allowed to build a V12 or V10 for 'safety reasons', Max will agree to it under 'cost cutting measures', then the race to build the new engine and chassis begins again. I prefer the open cylinder format, that builders can use as many or few cylinders as they like, so long as they don't exceed the displacement of 2.4litres. Who knows, some enterprising engineer may find (as did Ducati) that a huge V Twin gives better drive out of the corners than a V8?

Raglanparade · 16 Nov 2005, 05:41 (Ref:1461975)

2.4 is an ugly number. Id rather it be 3 or 2.

**Adam43** · 16 Nov 2005, 09:06 (Ref:1462074)

Actual 2.4 is quite a beautiful number. Nicely divisible by 2,3,4,6,8,12. 8 being the key now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargazer

If FIA was to ban some of the aero and electronic aids, engineers would focus on the engine developement and I wouldn't be surprised seeing a 2.4l V8 producing over 900 or 950 HP.

I don't think the electronic aids or aero have had any detrimental effect on engine power development. 950bhp from a 3l engine is very impressive.

sonic · 16 Nov 2005, 11:51 (Ref:1462205)

This minimum weight for the engine of 95 KGs seems a bit pointless to me.

Presumeably because they think it will ban exotic materials and reduce costs, but this must be nonsense

the rich teams will simply have motors that weight the most at the base, with extremely light top ends,thus reducing centre of gravity. As they do with the rest of the car right now in fact.

**Adam43** · 16 Nov 2005, 12:00 (Ref:1462214)

There are also rules defining the minimum c.o.g. of the engine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIA 2006 tech rules

5.5.2 The centre of gravity of the engine may not lie less than 165mm above the reference plane.

**chunterer** · 16 Nov 2005, 12:29 (Ref:1462227)

[QUOTE=AdamAshmore I don't think the electronic aids or aero have had any detrimental effect on engine power development. 950bhp from a 3l engine is very impressive.[/QUOTE]

Incredibly so i'd say!

These things are gonna be revving so madly that we could be in for serious detonations and extra strength ear plus for driver and everyone trackside? But then again reliability is improving all the time..

Does anyone actually know what they sound like?

Marbot · 16 Nov 2005, 12:44 (Ref:1462237)

I think the engine rules have been made as such so that it is basicly what happens in the combustion chamber that will make the difference.I don't think there's any chance of going back to V12's or even V10's,more likely it'll be a 1.8 V6.Where will it all end!

Pingguest · 16 Nov 2005, 13:21 (Ref:1462261)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

I think the engine rules have been made as such so that it is basicly what happens in the combustion chamber that will make the difference.I don't think there's any chance of going back to V12's or even V10's,more likely it'll be a 1.8 V6.Where will it all end!

Standard engine blocks, all produced under the supervision of Max!

During the past decade the FIA introduced more and more regulations. It didn't really improve the racing.

If Max really wants to slow down the cars, he should increase the minimum weight and ban refuelling. To reduce the costs, he could introduce the standard, but totally adaptable ECU and allow teams to share chassis, parts and designs.

AllonFS · 16 Nov 2005, 13:32 (Ref:1462269)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Five years ago we had lots of power but not much aero (relatively).Now we have a lot less power and loads of aero.Two different ways of achieving the same goal.However the former would seem to be the most entertaining way of achieving that goal.I have a feeling that some of the more mediocre drivers will perform a lot better next season,simply because the cars will be easier to drive...

...Next year if the cars do get anywhere near this years lap times it will be because of aero and tyre improvements and not engine improvements.

Agree with you entirely. Less power, more grip and electrical wizardry is the complete opposite to what F1 needs to make it more interesting to watch and allow the best drivers to show off their skills.

Frank_White · 16 Nov 2005, 14:33 (Ref:1462307)

F1 has ALWAYS been about technical wizardry.

If people want a dumbed down less technical racing series they should follow Champ Car.

Red · 16 Nov 2005, 15:23 (Ref:1462333)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

After a few years everyone settled on V10s and eventually the FIA made V10s mandatory. This stopped the potentially expensive route of developing another configuration and no one complained. Although IIRC Toyota was rumoured to be looking at a V12 and maybe Ferrari.

Uhm, Ferrari did complain. And Toyota, not only that they complained, but they also delayed their entry by 1 year paying a hefty fine in the process, because that was the only engine that they had by that time.

PS: FIA didn't make V10 mandatory, they delayed other configurations until 2007 when it should be free for all again. It's 2006 and we have 2.4 V8 formula

**chunterer** · 16 Nov 2005, 15:32 (Ref:1462337)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank_White

F1 has ALWAYS been about technical wizardry.

If people want a dumbed down less technical racing series they should follow Champ Car.

AH but nowadys the engine/car firms rule the roost so the 'technical' aspect is arrowed much more towards suiting them than the teams 'own' development themselves if you know what i mean...it's not just about devilishly good chassis or aero wizardry anymore.

But under ridiculous current costs climate the teams rely heavily on the manufacturers for financial and development costs - and they keep on spending- Once manufacturers have enough know how on the car technical side they buy out the team and eun it themselves!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Standard engine blocks, all produced under the supervision of Max!

During the past decade the FIA introduced more and more regulations. It didn't really improve the racing.

If Max really wants to slow down the cars, he should increase the minimum weight and ban refuelling. To reduce the costs, he could introduce the standard, but totally adaptable ECU and allow teams to share chassis, parts and designs.

Absolutely! Well almost, let the manufacturers go beserk with engine development (that way they can have their head with technical superiority if they want) but rationalise chassis and add on stuff a bit more - that way costs are better managed, speeds are kept resonable and competition is greater?

AllonFS · 16 Nov 2005, 15:51 (Ref:1462346)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chunterer

Well almost, let the manufacturers go beserk with engine development (that way they can have their head with technical superiority if they want) but rationalise chassis and add on stuff a bit more - that way costs are better managed, speeds are kept resonable and competition is greater?

Spot on - not far off the turbo era approach. And I remember some pretty good racing as a result, as well as lots of innovation.

Super Tourer · 16 Nov 2005, 16:59 (Ref:1462388)

We had this debate this time last year when the drivers first sat in the hybred cars with reduced aero - complaints about lack of grip and how slow the cars will be.

I think once the final versions of the V8's are integrated into cars designed specifically for them, they won't be as slow as the modified versions that are hitting the tracks in winter testing.

It's early days and although I loved the scream of the V10, there is a also a certain something about a V8. I would also expect that power levels will rise steeply as the development kicks in and the rev range expands.

Marbot · 16 Nov 2005, 17:46 (Ref:1462427)

I think that percentagewise over a period of time, it's much more difficult to find power from the engine than it is to get downforce from the aerodynamics.

Super Tourer · 16 Nov 2005, 18:52 (Ref:1462476)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

I think that percentagewise over a period of time, it's much more difficult to find power from the engine than it is to get downforce from the aerodynamics.

True, but I don't believe that any of the manufacturers are showing their hand yet, I doubt that the current 'gap' will be anything like it is now come the first race and by mid season there will be more gains.

We have also been used to huge increase in speeds inbetween the 2000 to 2004 seasons as tyre development drove lap times down.

Pingguest · 16 Nov 2005, 19:07 (Ref:1462491)

By the coming generation V8's the vibration will be an important issue. After the first tests many drivers complained about headache.

Pingguest · 16 Nov 2005, 19:10 (Ref:1462493)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chunterer

Absolutely! Well almost, let the manufacturers go beserk with engine development (that way they can have their head with technical superiority if they want) but rationalise chassis and add on stuff a bit more - that way costs are better managed, speeds are kept resonable and competition is greater?

If teams may share chassis, parts and designs, the costs will be better managed. What's wrong with Midland buying the same car as used by McLaren? It would spice up the competition, because a team doesn't even need to have a factory to have a chance of winning the race.

**Bononi** · 16 Nov 2005, 22:03 (Ref:1462680)

Uhn... isn't it the fundamental base in Formula One ? Changing this wouldn't be F1 anymore.

SpawnyWhippet · 16 Nov 2005, 22:10 (Ref:1462688)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pingguest

By the coming generation V8's the vibration will be an important issue. After the first tests many drivers complained about headache.

This problem happens in a lot of carbon tub cars, it can be significantly reduced by careful seat design for the driver.

Pingguest · 17 Nov 2005, 08:38 (Ref:1462975)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bononi

Uhn... isn't it the fundamental base in Formula One ? Changing this wouldn't be F1 anymore.

What's a fundamental base in Formula 1? That teams are obliged to construct their own chassis? Well, in the 1970's the teams weren't obliged to do so. So, why does Formula 1 need that rule any way?

BootsOntheSide · 17 Nov 2005, 11:15 (Ref:1463079)

Low peor but high grip is not really the right way to go, even if some of the effect of reducing engine capacity will certainly be nullified once the cars are designed around it. Is there a historical precedent in era when power has reduced or grip increased for the quality of driver to make a smaller impact (I realise that his is subjective and involves multiple driver comparisons, but it's worth looking at), or this just a wild theory?

Raglanparade · 17 Nov 2005, 12:47 (Ref:1463147)

im not sure.. could 1988 or 1989 be an example ??

The end of the turbo era would have seen reduced horsepower (or reduced boost in 1988 in McLarens case).

At the same time aerodynamics would have still been developing i would assume.

Thus we would have increased grip but reduced power around this period.