What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[WhiteBlue]

There are two sides to the energy efficiency discussion. The fan side and the public side.

...

The majority of F1 fans want spectacle, extreme technology, fast changing competition, excitement and ear shattering noise. They don't care about physical limits for drivers, teams going bust, or the risk of lethal accidents. They want all the goodies and if possible for much lower ticket prices. That is only natural. F1 will try to give their customers all the goodies within reasonable limits. Unfortunately the real world has to make compromises so that the drivers and marshals still enjoy decent safety, the teams can stay in business, the tracks do not go bust on ever wider crash zones and the tax payers in different countries will still pay the deficits of the race promoters. Ultimately F1 belongs to the FiA and those blazers will finally have to approve any decision the teams take. So if the teams do not give enough priority to fuel efficiency the WMSC will put a stick into the spikes and stop any formula they don't like.

I'm sorry WB but that's a little off of the true mark. You really shouldn't go around stating what others want as if it's fact and that you have a true understanding of it. Please get off your high horse, or someone's going to have to pull you down.

Well if that is more acceptable I will say that the above is my opinion.

I have followed the typical fan comments long enough to know what the majority fancies. Very few ever consider the world from the pov of the other stake holders in F1. For that reason I have added the paragraph that was deleted from the above quotation. I wanted to show that different objectives exist with different stake holders in F1. We can only understand the complex process of rule making when we understand what stake holders like the FiA are looking for.

I assume that we are still entitled to have an opinion on F1technical.com even if it contrasts to the opinion of an honored moderator. I wish all moderators would keep a neutral perspective on opinions.

[mx_tifoso]

Your wish has been denied. I also have the right to state my opinion, should it be for or against a certain subject. No one will hold me back from doing so, much less you and your constant berating of a certain wish to do so.

Just as anyone can share their opinion anyone else is free to counter it with their own.

...
Well if that is more acceptable I will say that the above is my opinion.

I have followed the typical fan comments long enough to know what the majority fancies. Very few ever consider the world from the pov of the other stake holders in F1.
...

Your opinions are more often than not biased or skewed WB, therefore your approach of knowing what most F1 fans want from the sport should not be trusted. The idea that most people understand a basic business model shouldn't be so far fetched, so that they would want teams to spend more than they have or act in a way that leads them to collapse is not very realistic, at least IMO.

And this...

They don't care about physical limits for drivers, teams going bust, or the risk of lethal accidents.

Get a grip please.

...

And it's not just the sound. Non-ICE racing is something else and cannot substitute motorsport. I've nothing against them, I'm just not interested.

+1. F1 has to remain ICE powered for as long as possible. Although I don't care for FI either, I know it's more efficient and can produce more power and torque from lower revs and displacement but it just doesn't do it for me, as irrational as that really is.

[mx_tifoso]

There is perhaps another angle to the use, or not use, of an inline-four, can such a configuration be used as a fully stressed member?
I mean lateral stiffness-wise, as far as I can recall, the BMW 1.5 inline-four turbo needed some sort of sub-frame to support it?

Is that still be a problem with modern chassis and engines? How do other current open wheel series cope with their I4's?

[autogyro]

Everything that is possible to do in internal combustion has already been done and done to death. This is a fact.
F1 can only continue with ICE in F1 as an emaciated control formula that is long obsolete.
If the regulations make the mistake of defining a global engine at 1.5 turbo with a controlled Kers application, it will be the death nell of F1 period.
If the regulations define an ice similar to that used this year F1 is also finished.
F1 was originaly created for the ultimate development of vehicles for road use.
It was the peak of technical development in vehicle engineering.
It IS NOT a cheap benefit series for bankrupt road car makers to manipulate and stagnate for their corrupt ends. To maintain the selling con they use to sell fuel thirsty polluting obsolete 19th century vehicles to gullible petrol heads.
Their time is well and truely over, meet the new world.
Brrm brrm

[WhiteBlue]

The idea that most people understand a basic business model shouldn't be so far fetched, so that they would want teams to spend more than they have or act in a way that leads them to collapse is not very realistic, at least IMO.

I will not adress those parts of the post which deal with personal remarks about me but I will comment above opinion. Is the majority of fans indeed understanding the business model of F1?

If we follow the comments of senior managers in F1 like Adam Parr or Ross Brawn it is evident that the majority of teams cannot afford anything that would increase the current cost of competing.

If you look at the composition of the Formula 1 grid for next year in particular I think you will find that the vast majority of teams are not in a position to increase spending at all and many need to reduce spending quite significantly. I think this is not the moment to start changing things that are going to increase costs.

The economy is very delicate at the moment and we need to be careful to take a view for all the teams in Formula 1. ... I think on the subject of testing overall we mustn't go back to having separate test teams. If there is any testing introduced it has to be integrated in a way that we don't need extra personnel to do it.

Quite contrary the cost reductions agreed in the RRA will have to be followed through meticulously to safeguard the sport. This is not compatible with the following demands by fans that I have seen times and again:

• unrestricted engine configurations
• unrestricted IC engine development
• no limit for power or rpm or limits like 1400 bhp and 22.000 rpm
• unrestricted tyre competition
• increased testing in winter and in season
• employment of test teams
• no refuelling ban
• no restriction on qualifying engines
• no limit to the number of engines
• no limit to the number of gearboxes
• full or partial return of T-cars
• no limits to downforce
• unrestricted use of wind tunnels
• free choice of employment levels
• unrestricted number of race personnel

I could continue that list with many other items that people have advocated in this forum. They all would lead to the collaps of the current business model in my view. So that leads me to the conclusion that indeed most people do not understand the implications of their demands. My above list hasn't even touched on the consequences for track safety or the track modifications that the race promotors would face if fans would have all their wishes fulfilled.

[alelanza]

F1 was originaly created for the ultimate development of vehicles for road use.

No it wasn't

[xpensive]

There is perhaps another angle to the use, or not use, of an inline-four, can such a configuration be used as a fully stressed member?
I mean lateral stiffness-wise, as far as I can recall, the BMW 1.5 inline-four turbo needed some sort of sub-frame to support it?

Is that still be a problem with modern chassis and engines? How do other current open wheel series cope with their I4's?

This is why the question-marks, I don't know, would the interface between tub and a slim I-4 be laterally stiff enough for F1?

Btw, you are a pia to most members WB.

[WhiteBlue]

Btw, you are a pia to most members WB.

I take this as an expression of your hubris. You have no means to make a judgement on this. This site deliberately avoids member or post rating.

On Topic: The sensible ideas are all discussed and they are on the table. I just remains to be seen where the balance of power will take the decision makers. All indications are pointing to a small, downsized turbo engine. The particulars of that engine are the interesting details and how they will make sure the targeted fuel efficiency figures are reached.

[xpensive]

Btw, you are a pia to most members WB.

I take this as an expression of your hubris. You have no means to make a judgement on this. This site deliberately avoids member or post rating.
...

If you think it's only me and the Aussie CanAm fan who dispice you, you are very much mistaken, the animosity goes all the way from moderators to juniors, why you should quit this forum voluntarily before you are removed.

[ESPImperium]

Ive finally decided to go back to 2005 for my race data sheets, and what ive seen as costs go down, the ammount of time the cars spend on track has gone up quite conciderably, the fans get to see about 25% more action than they did in 2005 from the 2010 figure taking race distance covered by all cars as a total at Austrailia.

Surly with reduced costs, and the current regs biting hard, getting more cars on track at race weekends is what is the fans ultimatly want???

What this thread needs is to get back on-topic and have a constructive argument about what form or forms the new engine regs should follow.

[autogyro]

F1 was originaly created for the ultimate development of vehicles for road use.

No it wasn't

So please tell us what it was created for.

[andrew]

Btw, you are a pia to most members WB.

I take this as an expression of your hubris. You have no means to make a judgement on this. This site deliberately avoids member or post rating.
...

If you think it's only me and the Aussie CanAm fan who dispice you, you are very much mistaken, the animosity goes all the way from moderators to juniors, why you should quit this forum voluntarily before you are removed.

WhiteBlue, you are clearly a knowledgable guy and that is good on this site. It would be a shame for the site to loose someone knowledgable but please stop forcing your opinion on everyone or trying to dominate each thread you post in. Give others a chance and relax a bit and everyone will get on better.

[WhiteBlue]

edit: made PM

[alelanza]

F1 was originaly created for the ultimate development of vehicles for road use.

No it wasn't

So please tell us what it was created for.

Hey, the statement is yours, you tell me what you based it on. BTW, who is 'us'? who else is with you on that keyboard?

Also i'm curious to know what made you edit such a short post 6 hrs later.

[autogyro]

Curiosity has a habit of killing the cat.
Just answer my question.