Well, as of now Formula One will get 4 cylinder turbo engines in 2013. (AS OF NOW - this could change)
Ferrari and Bernie say no it ain't happening, they don't "approve", but neither actually has a say.
Luca said, "The real challenge is to make an eight or 12-cylinder engine economical,"
So... Why not let them build whatever they want... and just have an MPG minimum say 10 mpg. That way it isn't the number of cylinders "making the sport greener", but actual #s that make F1 greener
In reply to oldeskewltoy:
Tough call and too soon to say......
Luca and Bernie are focused on marketing; Ferrari sells V8 and V12 road cars and F1 is much about exotic sounds. Turbo 4's don't mix with either concern very well.
On the flip side, the FIA is primarily concerned with reigning-in costs, encouraging a "green" image and attracting manufacturers who could benefit from that image.
How everything develops will interesting.
I like the idea of a turbo 4 but it would be nice for F1 to have a more 'open' ruleset and allow some creativity and engineering!
oldeskewltoy wrote:So... Why not let them build whatever they want... and just have an MPG minimum say 10 mpg. That way it isn't the number of cylinders "making the sport greener", but actual #s that make F1 greener
As a variation, just assign an "appropriate" amount of gas for each race and let them have at it. If they want to build something less efficient well...
As has been said before, it's not fun watching a team sandbag because they are running out of gas.
What mpg do F1 cars get anyway? What fuel type do they run?
I'm really torn over the subject of fuel limits in F1 and MotoGP, and with engine layouts as well.
I do think racing is the most engaging when it's not too far removed from what can be used in production cars. spinning V8s and V10s to insane RPMs isn't really all that applicable. So from that standpoint I think turbo engines make a lot of sense. As the '80s proved, they can be pretty exciting cars. And quite frankly, they don't have to sound boring. While I do find something spine-tingling bout the current cars' sounds, sometimes they do just sound shrill. There's no bellow, no roar, no snarl...
Of course, there I'm getting into really subjective territory. I think whatever works really well will end up sounding pretty good to me by association.
On fuel limits: I don't know. It can certainly be anticlimactic to see a battle fizzle 'cause someone's running out of juice. OTOH, it's just another element in an engineering/strategy/driving battle, and it feels less contrived than the DRS or even KERS, which may be among the most applicable parts...
What does 2-3 kg of fuel over a ~3mile lap work out to be? 2.5mpg? I don't understand why racing has to be "green" to begin with.
I want to see a real spending cap imposed in F1, then OPEN UP the technical regulations.
"Here are the dimensions your car has to fit in to, here are the tires you will be using. GO!"
Then you can decide, do we want to build a monster engine and out power everyone else; do we want to light, lithe and aerodynamic; or somewhere in between?
But from talking to my friends, I'm in the minority. They think part of it should be "whoever can get the most money" while I don't.
I don't see it holding up - can't see bernie standing for it - and the FIA needs him and F1 more hen he needs the FIA..
ransom wrote:In reply to killerkane:
And they run gasoline.
I was wondering what octane level fuel they run.
ransom wrote: On fuel limits: I don't know. It can certainly be anticlimactic to see a battle fizzle 'cause someone's running out of juice. OTOH, it's just another element in an engineering/strategy/driving battle, and it feels less contrived than the DRS or even KERS, which may be among the most applicable parts...
Yeah. I'm not suggesting it as a good idea. I'm suggesting it as a relatively better idea maximizing alternative solutions.
One real simple, fairly inexpensive way to reduce costs and increase fuel mileage - rev limiter. Tune those engines down to 11,000 rpm and let's see how that works. Not that I agree with doing that, but it would accomplish a goal. I am also a bit baffled why fuel economy (or the image of having any) is of anyone's concern in Formula 1. It's not like any of those cars will ever reach 10 mpg.
You guys must be awfully young. This is not a new game- find some footage from the turbo era of the early 80's and watch as driver after driver stalls out of the lead on the last few laps because their calculation was a bit off. Dominant driver+ dominant car+ poor gas mileage = nothing.
Streetwiseguy wrote:You guys must be awfully young. This is not a new game- find some footage from the turbo era of the early 80's and watch as driver after driver stalls out of the lead on the last few laps because their calculation was a bit off. Dominant driver+ dominant car+ poor gas mileage = nothing.
No I remember those days. Admittedly they're blurred now. I'm jsut saying if they want to look green (a stupid idea) I'd rather it be by them setting limits (either in terms of MPG, or just amount of fuel, which are similar but not identical options) opening up the options instead of mandating a specific green engine type. Then maybe we'd even get something useful out of F1.
I'd rather them do none of the above though.
The only F1 race that I've attended was @ Las Vegas IIRC 1982. The weekend also hosted Can Am and a motorcycle race.
The F1 cars at the time used a combination of 3 liter norm. asp. and 1.5 liter turbos. There was even a 12 cyl. Matra powered car. Man what a noise! It was facinating to see that on that track at that time all were competitive. Renault had the edge but broke, Ferrari had problems, and Michelle Alboreto won with a Tyrrell Cosworth. Being able to see all 3 of those types together at the same time was great as far as I was concerned. I guess because of that I was never turned off by the small disp. turbos. Having no limit on engine design and capacity doesn't work. Look what happened to the original Can Am.
oldsaw wrote:On the flip side, the FIA is primarily concerned with reigning-in costs, encouraging a "green" image and attracting manufacturers who could benefit from that image.
Reigning in costs? Hardly, just ask the WRC crowd. While it may have been announced as a financial decision, the new WRC cars are virtually the same price as the old ones.
