Not exactly what you'd call an efficient engine (in a car), certainly would be loud enuf tho!freedom_honda wrote:http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=40589
pitpass is reporting the FIA is also considering a gas turbine engine :S
Not exactly what you'd call an efficient engine (in a car), certainly would be loud enuf tho!freedom_honda wrote:http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=40589
pitpass is reporting the FIA is also considering a gas turbine engine :S
If they go this route, we can but hope that there will be no more volcanic eruptions caused by global warming. If there are, not only will the teams have problems getting home, they will not be able to race either.freedom_honda wrote:http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=40589
pitpass is reporting the FIA is also considering a gas turbine engine :S
Do I really need to point out the blatant factual errors in your statement?autogyro wrote:If they go this route, we can but hope that there will be no more volcanic eruptions caused by global warming. If there are, not only will the teams have problems getting home, they will not be able to race either.freedom_honda wrote:http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=40589
pitpass is reporting the FIA is also considering a gas turbine engine :S
No, they burned good old JP5 or very similar kerosene. The fuel efficiency of the early jet engines was so low that they trailed lots of unburned carbon molecules from unburned fuel in their wake, particularly on afterburners.God those Stratojets were filthy, what is the fuel they burned, glue?!
In other words: at peak power teams and manufactures will continue to use the same amount of fuel. I agree manufactures should get an incentive to lower fuel consumption at partial load, but fuel consumption should be lowered while going flat-out too. Taking this in consideration, shouldn't Formula 1 have both fuel-flow limits and fuel tank size limits?WhiteBlue wrote:You are contradicting yourself. A solution with max fuel flow isn't limiting the amount of fuel in any practical way. It is limiting the flow rate. I did not mention qualifying because I would not do any thing there. Let them have a go without limit except the longevity. Naturally the engines have to live as long as they have to live now because we need low engine prices. F1 must never go back to the silly spending when engines alone cost a billion $ per year.Pingguest wrote:Your solution sound quite artificial to me. Any way, I can't see why fuel-flow limits wouldn't give manufactures an incentive to use the leanest internal combustion engine. As the amount of fuel is limited, manufactures will have to make their engines more fuel-efficient to get more power out of them. Besides, a maximum fuel allowance is impractical for qualifying, don't you think?
It is the nature of an F1 race that only a certain percentage like 40-70% runs on full throttle. It is the other 60-30% were you can save significantly if you employ the best lean running technique. None of the new technologies does improve the efficiency much on full throttle but they help on a partial load. If you set the total fuel load to 90% of what is normally needed you give an incentive to find max fuel saving under partial load conditions. Those teams and manufacturers who manage to find such savings will be able to continue to run with the same max power when it is needed. So by finding those savings they will not loose speed when the amount of fuel gets restricted more and more every year.
If Formula 1 chooses for a fuel tank size limit, it should accept all non-artificial consequences including drivers running out of fuel.I don't understand what you mean by artificial. It either works or it works not. Current qualifying format is rather complicated but it works well and provides the spectacle. Why should the limited fuel tank not work the same way. It works in Le Mans and I just made a little change for F1.
Everyone 'knows' that everything that's wrong in the world today is because of glow-ball-worming and that happens solely because of THE good CARs.flynfrog wrote:Do I really need to point out the blatant factual errors in your statement?
I have yet to see one credible study links global warming with volcanic eruptions maybe the other direction.
Yeees! In future they should fly to Asia and back more often carrying their econobox-engined cars back and forth, that would improve the 'footprint' of Formula1 and volcanoes will never erupt again.autogyro wrote:If they go this route, we can but hope that there will be no more volcanic eruptions caused by global warming. If there are, not only will the teams have problems getting home, they will not be able to race either.
It will never happen but a turbine could be a better choice than an ICE. An undersized turbine combined with a electric drive system could be very good. As for jet wash the though of jet blown diffusers should make the wake less of a problem. Hot gas ingestion might be another story.WhiteBlue wrote:I don't think anybody takes that turbine article any serious. A jet is way behind in fuel efficiency compared to ICE and cannot be structural part of the chassis. We do have a problem with turbulence now but then we would have jet wash on top of that. The proposal is simply the product of a moronic mind in my view. No engineering consideration whatsoever.
No, they burned good old JP5 or very similar kerosene. The fuel efficiency of the early jet engines was so low that they trailed lots of unburned carbon molecules from unburned fuel in their wake, particularly on afterburners.God those Stratojets were filthy, what is the fuel they burned, glue?!
That looks like an YB-36G with six jets only. Probably 1949.
The Americans got their first military jet engines from the German Me 262 in 1945 at the end of WWII.
I put the YB-36G picture at the end of the 40ties begin of the 50ties perhaps four to six design years after WWII. By visual comparison you can see that the design had not much evolved yet. Particularly high power jets were still a thing of the future.
The Americans had fantastic conventional air frames in bomber size at that time but it took them 15 years to get jet engines on a comparable power level to lift the take off weights those frames could carry. The B-52s had eight engines and that wasn't enough.