|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
4 Apr 2017, 18:16 (Ref:3723782) | #11 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
Quote:
Also as you say anything that reduces efficiency increases the amount of fuel weight and/or lift and coasting needed in a non refuel scenario. Which is the opposite of what we need. If the choice would be between: a) more noise and lower cost through a removal of the MGU-H, but more fuel weight and lift and coasting due to reduced fuel efficiency b) the current noise levels, but reduced cost through a standardized MGU-H. my personal preference would be b). But I could fully accept option a) as a good option. Personally I find it extremely low tech and inefficient to push these extremely draggy cars down the straights. If we wanna reduce the fuel weight having flexible aero would be a good thing to explore when looking at future regulations to both reduce fuel weight and lift and coasting, reduce laptimes and give the aero guys something to do when aero is more simplified/made less fragile in the future in order to let cars follow each other. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |