Do we need pneumatic valves if the revs are much lower and power comes through higher torque (i.e. turbocharged) rather than high RPM?xpensive wrote:Right, so let's make it 1.6 liter, but can we have pneumatic valves?
If rpm is limited and valve type opened up, we could have sleeve valves and proper power output at last.machin wrote:Do we need pneumatic valves if the revs are much lower and power comes through higher torque (i.e. turbocharged) rather than high RPM?xpensive wrote:Right, so let's make it 1.6 liter, but can we have pneumatic valves?
F1 was better when the engine had to last the entire weekend as then the engines companies where right on the bleeding edge reliability and max power which made for more engine dramas and more fun imo.machin wrote:I'd go further and keep the multiple races per engine rule we currently have... probably go further; 5 races per engine?djos wrote:
* Engine must last the entire race weekend - any change equals back of the grid
AG, thats why I proposed spec wing elements with mandated min/max AoA to go along with the spec Diffuser that we where supposed to have last year. There is no other way to really control DF - as we have seen in the past, if you just mandate wings to be higher off the ground or forward of the rear axle line etc the engineers will find a a way to make those wings super efficient, stall them etc.autogyro wrote:If you give the teams 'excess power' you encourage them to use the excess for creating more DF, drag and wake turbulence.
If you give them less power and fuel restriction you encourage them to make the cars more aero efficient with less drag and less wake turbulence.
If you include KERS and other energy recovery systems you encourage development for further efficiency.
Put an intake restrictor on current engines and see how fast the aero people change their tune and take of anything creating DF and drag.
There is no super technology to be had bolting on huge power.
There is an old saying:
"You can make a brick sh-- house fly if you give it enough thrust".
Personally I think there's much more technical interest in an engine that can put out 700BHP AND last 5 races than one that can put out 800BHP and only last one weekend..... but I guess it simply depends on your point of view... maybe I'm getting old... I just don't like to see so much waste!djos wrote: F1 was better when the engine had to last the entire weekend as then the engines companies where right on the bleeding edge reliability and max power which made for more engine dramas and more fun imo.
700hp is pathetic for the pinacle of motorsport - nascar's with push-rods and carbys make more than 800hp and V8 supercars make about 650hp from push-rod v8's using tuned port fuel injection with a 7500rpm limiter!machin wrote:Personally I think there's much more technical interest in an engine that can put out 700BHP AND last 5 races than one that can put out 800BHP and only last one weekend..... but I guess it simply depends on your point of view... maybe I'm getting old... I just don't like to see so much waste!djos wrote: F1 was better when the engine had to last the entire weekend as then the engines companies where right on the bleeding edge reliability and max power which made for more engine dramas and more fun imo.
What is pathetic about todays cars? They also have about 700+ hp and last several races. There is no point to increase the cost again beyond what we have now. I personally do not want a cost race. I want a contest of the best engineers for the better ideas. I don't want more performance or power. The tracks cannot afford more expensive safety measures and the spectators do not want to get removed further and further from the action. The sensible concept is to stabilize the power and balance performance increases by allowing ever decreasing energy use.djos wrote:700hp is pathetic for the pinacle of motorsport - nascar's with push-rods and carbys make more than 800hp and V8 supercars make about 650hp from push-rod v8's using tuned port fuel injection with a 7500rpm limiter!machin wrote:Personally I think there's much more technical interest in an engine that can put out 700BHP AND last 5 races than one that can put out 800BHP and only last one weekend..... but I guess it simply depends on your point of view... maybe I'm getting old... I just don't like to see so much waste!djos wrote: F1 was better when the engine had to last the entire weekend as then the engines companies where right on the bleeding edge reliability and max power which made for more engine dramas and more fun imo.
Where's the contest in having the same 1.5L hot hatch engine (GRE) with different stickers for everyone?WhiteBlue wrote:I want a contest of the best engineers for the better ideas.
Non, but there would be if the engine regs were opened up, including free valve types and the power was restricted by fuel allowed and helped with energy recovery.Pandamasque wrote:Where's the contest in having the same 1.5L hot hatch engine (GRE) with different stickers for everyone?WhiteBlue wrote:I want a contest of the best engineers for the better ideas.
NOTE: my 666th post is on GRE
But watching noisy V8s it is more exciting than watching F3 cars pass by sounding like: *yaaaawn* *yaawn* *yaawn* (as discribed by Graham Goodwin of Daily Sportscar). That's what comes to mind every time anyone mentions GRE. Especially when you know they've been built to be as cheap and durable as possible, just like the noisy prehistoric American V8s, except with better fuel efficiency. Although NASCAR could turn out to be much 'greener' than F1 with GRE as it doesn't fly back and forth around the globe so that BE could reap his profits.autogyro wrote:All these posts about how wonderful American motor sport is, when all they do is pour gasoline into huge blocks of cast iron or alloy annoys me no end.
It is 19th century technology brought up to date for the benefit of the greedy oil barons nothing else. It has no more 21st century finesse than a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
I used to race dragsters based on the technology and it was fun but has no more relevence to todays vehicles and the future, than the triple expansion steam engine.
Nascar 5.57 literdjos wrote:700hp is pathetic for the pinacle of motorsport - nascar's with push-rods and carbys make more than 800hp and V8 supercars make about 650hp from push-rod v8's using tuned port fuel injection with a 7500rpm limiter!machin wrote:Personally I think there's much more technical interest in an engine that can put out 700BHP AND last 5 races than one that can put out 800BHP and only last one weekend..... but I guess it simply depends on your point of view... maybe I'm getting old... I just don't like to see so much waste!djos wrote: F1 was better when the engine had to last the entire weekend as then the engines companies where right on the bleeding edge reliability and max power which made for more engine dramas and more fun imo.
