I'd say everyone should buy a common system...and unleash it. Sliding scale time vs. power...ie 10secs of 60hp or 4secs at 160hp...chosen by the driver adjustable per lap...that sort of thing.
The Merc system works best and weighs least. Just use that.
axle wrote:I'd say everyone should buy a common system...and unleash it. Sliding scale time vs. power...ie 10secs of 60hp or 4secs at 160hp...chosen by the driver adjustable per lap...that sort of thing.
The Merc system works best and weighs least. Just use that.
No develope on 1 make KERS.....
I suggest fully open KERS rule
Scania wrote:F1 with no High technology, why don't me watch NASCAR or Top Fuel racing?
high technology like spec engines and spec wings
the KERS was a publicity stunt like indy burning earthanol.
I say allow the KERS to be unlimited but also remove the stupid engine rules lets see what it can really do
Yes, KERS makes no sense if it is castrated, so it needs to be unleashed. What do you mean by stupid engine rules? Surely an engine needs limitation of some sort. What do you think it should be?
3 race engines. come on this is F1 not a bottom rung spec class. For engine rules I would say set the displacement for NA and set a displacement for turbo. Let them teams do as they wish
I think that ban KERS is FOTA try to make BGP & Red Bull stay with them.
Because they no data about KERS on their car, if the KERS must use in next yearand it is a dobule KERS, the KERS teams will be predominance.
FOTA has agreed to ban KERS, but since Williams is not with FOTA for the forseeable future (http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=219) Could that mean that we'll have them running the higher output KERS next year?
"It could be done manually. It would take quite a while, but it could be done. There is however a much more efficient and accurate way of getting the data. Men with lasers." Wing Commander Andy Green
Now we see Ferrari's & Toyota's(FOTA) view of the Future of F1... No innovation just the same old refinement of $2k 1 time use wheel nuts.
So what if it is expensive, the poor teams like FIF1 lease it from merc on the cheap, FErrari doesnt care about costs, they spent 50 mil plus just to get 30 hp out of their supposedly frozen engine last year. I doubt they spent that much on KERS yet, neithe r has their partner magnetti mirelli.
If this is their short sided vision of the the future of auto racing I wont be watching their low tech breakaway series.
Somehow KERS is not high technology because Massa says that he wants to race the highest technology but FOTA says no KERS... the contradictions continue.
cant go from $500 mil to 45 Massa? What is your $500 mil team doing for your win total this year? MAssa actually claimed to love the KERS system earlie this year. Massa doesnt have a clue, As a top driver his salary would go up under the proposed salary cap, and here is FOTA voting to get rid of the high technology that he claims he wants.
ISLAMATRON wrote:Somehow KERS is not high technology because Massa says that he wants to race the highest technology but FOTA says no KERS... the contradictions continue.
cant go from $500 mil to 45 Massa? What is your $500 mil team doing for your win total this year? MAssa actually claimed to love the KERS system earlie this year. Massa doesnt have a clue, As a top driver his salary would go up under the proposed salary cap, and here is FOTA voting to get rid of the high technology that he claims he wants.
Their high technology is only focus on aerodynamic & how to make more CO2 maybe.
This came from a motorcycle site but it relates to cars once the motorcycle bit is dealt with. Originates from Lotus employees. Fits in with suggestions made here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what racing could be like – a feast of competing technologies not seen since the 1920s
Rupert Paul, Bike Magazine
It’s lap 18 of the Estoril MotoGP, 2016, and theNorton rotary, bankrolled by Malaysian renewable hydrogen fuel giant Petronas, is doing its usual trick of streaking into the lead for six laps, before cutting power to ensure it lasts the race.
Luca Rossi, little bro of the old master, is powersliding round in second on his 900cc V4 two stroke, built by the newly-merged Kawasaki-Suzuki corporation. There’s not a blue haze in sight, and no expansion chambers either. Behind him Taylor MacKenzie, son of Neil, could equal his dad’s best GP placing – on a supercharged Zongshen bioethanol triple.
Or could he? Triple world champ Marco Simoncelli is closing fast on his 2WD methanol-powered Yamaha M2. And he’s bringing wild card Tom Sykes with him, on the Queen’s University Belfast twin-crank, compound pressure-charged LPG-burning single. But in the end, Hiroshi Ayoama wins. It’s a blistering day, and his solar panel-faired, regenerative-braking Honda has been quietly stockpiling energy throughout the race. On the last two laps the low-revving 2-litre V5 sprouts another 50bhp, demolishing the competition in imperious style.
This is what racing could be like – a feast of competing technologies not seen since the 1920s. All it would take is one rule: to limit every machine to a fixed amount of startline energy.
That’s the vision of world-leading combustion experts Jamie Turner and Richard Pearson at Lotus Engineering in Norfolk. Although they work in the car world, their ideas make equal sense for bikes. They’ve spent their careers researching powertrain technology, and are now trying to reform the global system of making and regulating cars to head off the twin horrors of global warming and energy insecurity. Their latest move is a paper* to reconfigure motorsport, ‘to drive technology for the betterment of mankind’. Their message? Racing needs relevance. It has to start reflecting the challenges we face in the real world.
Rationing energy is not entirely a new idea. After all, today’s MotoGP bikes do their stuff on a 21-litre petrol limit – a principle Jamie and Richard believe Bernie Ecclestone should adopt. But they also point out that petrol is only one fuel. There are now cars and bikes out there that run on diesel, ethanol, methanol, fuel cells, batteries and even hydrogen. All different forms of energy storage, and litres is no way to measure them. For that, you need Megajoules.
Turner and Pearson calculate that an F1 car needs about 4784MJ to complete a race. That means a MotoGP bike, doing 17mpg on fossil- based petrol, uses 669MJ. And if you specify the allowance that way, suddenly every powertrain technology can compete on a level playing field. Top-class racing is transformed into a straight fight for efficiency – which is exactly what the world needs. Forget Carmelo Ezpeleta’s decision to scrap the 250s. If he really understood the game he was in he’d have a 650MJ top class, backed by 400MJ and 200MJ classes. If the world championship were being set up today rather than in 1949, that’s what it would look like.
And it needn’t stop there. Energy rationing drives ‘tank-to-wheel’ efficiency for all fuels. Why not also use racing to drive efficiency in the way different fuels are sourced, manufactured and transported – the so-called ‘well-to-tank’ stage?
For example, new player Coskata make bioethanol from woody waste such as straw, leaves and forestry debris. Compared with hauling oil out of the ground, their process has been independently audited to emit 84% less fossil carbon. So if a race team used Coskata ethanol rather than gasoline, they ought to be allowed more of it. How much more? Turner and Pearson’s paper floats a methodology that would give a Coskata ethanol bike 8.4% more startline energy than its gasoline-powered equivalent. For corn ethanol it’s 2.9% more, renewable methanol 10.5%, and renewable hydrogen or electricity 10%. To recognise this, there’d be an energy suppliers’ championship analagous to today’s manufacturer and team championships.
MotoGP’s 21-litre limit is a good start, but the bikes are still glorified Manx Nortons. This is a plan that could move the series into the 21st century.
*Turner and Pearson: The Application of Energy-Based Fuel Formulae to Increase the Efficiency Relevance and Reduce the CO2 Emissions of Motor Sport. SAE number 2008-01-2953, presented at the SAE Motorsports Conference”
ISLAMATRON wrote:That is far too intelligent for the unlimited revs, unlimited displacement crowd. Their brains are only stimulated by loud noise.
I am a self-admitted member of that crowd (although unlimited displacement doesn't arouse me much). One doesn't have to be brain dead to feel passionate about the most obvious thing at an F1 race - the noise. I am also, admittedly, a noise whore and a cars noise can make or break a car in my eyes. Call me 1 dimensional or whatever, but I refer to it as passion.
The BRM V16, the Ford DFV, the Ferrari V12, the Honda V10 are the lasting sensation of Formula 1 in many peoples' eyes. To remove that, is to remove the soul of the sport. I'm a purist.
What tok-tokkie is suggesting is not, by any means something I would look down on - it brings variety of technologies and noises to be sampled at a race (for instance, rotaries really do make a wonderful sound).
ISLAMATRON wrote:Now we see Ferrari's & Toyota's(FOTA) view of the Future of F1... No innovation just the same old refinement of $2k 1 time use wheel nuts.
So what if it is expensive, the poor teams like FIF1 lease it from merc on the cheap, FErrari doesnt care about costs, they spent 50 mil plus just to get 30 hp out of their supposedly frozen engine last year. I doubt they spent that much on KERS yet, neithe r has their partner magnetti mirelli.
If this is their short sided vision of the the future of auto racing I wont be watching their low tech breakaway series.
Prius
Enzo Ferrari was a great man. But he was not a good man. -- Phil Hill
ISLAMATRON wrote:That is far too intelligent for the unlimited revs, unlimited displacement crowd. Their brains are only stimulated by loud noise.
I am a self-admitted member of that crowd (although unlimited displacement doesn't arouse me much). One doesn't have to be brain dead to feel passionate about the most obvious thing at an F1 race - the noise. I am also, admittedly, a noise whore and a cars noise can make or break a car in my eyes. Call me 1 dimensional or whatever, but I refer to it as passion.
The BRM V16, the Ford DFV, the Ferrari V12, the Honda V10 are the lasting sensation of Formula 1 in many peoples' eyes. To remove that, is to remove the soul of the sport. I'm a purist.
What tok-tokkie is suggesting is not, by any means something I would look down on - it brings variety of technologies and noises to be sampled at a race (for instance, rotaries really do make a wonderful sound).
I love my Rotary at 10k rpm, probly louder than any F1 motor.
But today's F1 engines (2.4L V8 18k) rev higher than any of the engines you mentioned(cept for maybe the honda v-10)... do you remember how the turbo's sounded? They never reved past 13K if I remember... ever heard any of the CART/champ car 2.65L Turbo v8... they sounded fantastic, plus the added sounds of the turbo's wastegates and pop off valves added to the symphony. Honestly the spectacle of F1 has not been effected from going from unlimited 2.4L v8's to 19k rev limited and now to 18K rev limited. And definatly havent taken away as much as KERS has added.
