Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[autogyro]

Losing Merc would be a body blow.

[strad]

We don't need all these manufacturers at all..we need more garistas..is that how Enzo spelled it? Whatever you know what I mean..We need more privateers, not less.

[machin]

I agree; more privateers teams and more road car manufaturers supplying just the engines/transmissions (i.e. independant from the teams). That would be great....

[readonly]

Do we agree on this bit?

Technical regulations should be relaxed so that anyone, manufacturers and privateers, can develop their cars more.

Speed should be limited by reducing engine size ONLY.

Another thing is that I really don't understand why the FIA hates manufacturers. They are simply competitors. What harm can they do?

[wesley123]

Do we agree on this bit?

Technical regulations should be relaxed so that anyone, manufacturers and privateers, can develop their cars more.

Speed should be limited by reducing engine size ONLY.

Another thing is that I really don't understand why the FIA hates manufacturers. They are simply competitors. What harm can they do?

They put in waaaaaaayyyyyyy to many money wich others cant do(you make your cars by hand, no by money) wich the FIA dont seem to like 'due to the current recession'.

I'm sorry, but it is just rubbish to cut costs on everything just because those manufacturers invest too much and the world took a step backwards on economic base, it is just a stupid 'if we do this it looks like we are doing something good but we do not change anything at all', it is unneeded to do. We had such situations before and nothing was done then, why do it now? It is just that fake nice attitude the world has these days and everything is about how you present things. An great example though not entirely relevant; We spend millions on those childs in africa, we are doing it for 20 years or even more, and it only bacame worse due to the fact they gain their money back double due to unfair prices.

What i am saying is is that all of this is just showing how good you are and how you think of other people, but behind the scenes it is actually all wrong. And IF they do something right they do something that is much worse to do to comprimise, but that bad part is never really shown.

[WhiteBlue]

At the end of the day though you will still have the same amount of power rejected in the water and oil. Since it's the temperatures that count. And knowing that the engine material and contstruction wont be different, the heat rates wont change much.

Refueling is more efficient and is greener since the cars are lighter at any given time.

I would challenge that statement. HERS would normally use a first heat extraction from the water, oil and exhaust and convert that to power in an inverted heat pump like design. It could be another set of turbines or twin screw motors they would run with a refrigerator fluid which has to be condensed in secondary heat exchangers. In any case I would expect the final heat dissipation from oil, water and exhaust to be significantly reduced while the volume of heat exchangers and machinery goes up. They could be ending up with five additional rotating small machines. The added heat exchangers and machines would probably still be arranged in side pots.



This was the HERS BMW turbo steamer concept using a Rankine cycle. It obviously uses a lot of circuitry and machinery to do its job.


Refueling doesn't fit at all into the future strategy. The weight incentive of saving fuel gets lost if you allow refueling.

[ringo]

Oh sorry i did not realize you were talkin about HERS for the future. I was talking about simple turbo charging. I am not sure if HERS will be implemented in 2013.

[ringo]

Refueling doesn't fit at all into the future strategy. The weight incentive of saving fuel gets lost if you allow refueling.

Well, if you consider the weight of the car at any given time, refueling is more fuel efficient, since the load on the engine is less with less mass.

I like refueling as an aspect of greener racing. It's much cheaper than any other gimmick.

[WhiteBlue]

The issue is not saving a few kg of fuel. The issue is having F1 develop cutting edge technology to make cars save fuel. You do not achieve this by allowing refueling because the amount of fuel isn't restricted. The point is the restriction on the total amount of fuel and how that stimulates new technology.

http://www.manipef1.com/news/articles/11276/

Along with new engines the 2013 regulations will include more energy-recovery systems to help drive the technology forward for use in road cars. Such systems will include KERS and heat-recovery, where heat expelled from the engine will be recovered and used to power the car in much the same way KERS collects energy from the brakes.

[Just_a_fan]

The issue is not saving a few kg of fuel. The issue is having F1 develop cutting edge technology to make cars save fuel. You do not achieve this by allowing refueling because the amount of fuel isn't restricted.

Refuelling does not of itself preclude a total fuel limit. One can still have refuelling with a total fuel limit applied:

"You have 150kg of fuel for the race. This can be accommodated in a tank of 75-150kg capacity. Choice of tank size is free between these limits. Go and design your car"

Next year you reduce the limits of the fuel total and the tank size as you see fit. Simple.

As it happens, I wouldn't vote for refuelling per se but if it was part of a variety of options available to the teams e.g. limited fuel with KERS, limited fuel with refuelling, limited fuel with combination of both, then why not. If it results in good racing along with the relevant green message then let them have the choice. The important issue is that F1 gets to play at being green and the fans get to watch good races.

[aral]

The issue is not saving a few kg of fuel. The issue is having F1 develop cutting edge technology to make cars save fuel. You do not achieve this by allowing refueling because the amount of fuel isn't restricted.

Refuelling does not of itself preclude a total fuel limit. One can still have refuelling with a total fuel limit applied:

"You have 150kg of fuel for the race. This can be accommodated in a tank of 75-150kg capacity. Choice of tank size is free between these limits. Go and design your car"

Next year you reduce the limits of the fuel total and the tank size as you see fit. Simple.

As it happens, I wouldn't vote for refuelling per se but if it was part of a variety of options available to the teams e.g. limited fuel with KERS, limited fuel with refuelling, limited fuel with combination of both, then why not. If it results in good racing along with the relevant green message then let them have the choice. The important issue is that F1 gets to play at being green and the fans get to watch good races.

Whereas I would feel that a car should carry enough fuel to last a full race distance, there is also a way in which refuelling could be allowed. This is to have a mandatory pit stop or two, in which a premeasured and mandatory amount of fuel is added. this seems to work satisfactorily in DTM.

[WhiteBlue]

I do not approve refueling for a variety of reasons.

• refueling stops make drivers wait for the pit stop instead of forcing them to pass on track
• refueling ban leads to low fuel qualifying which I love, race fuel quali sucks. I hate it.
• carrying extra fuel weight is the best incentive to develop more fuel efficient cars, refuelling kills that incentive
• refueling costs more money, more air freight and more mechanics

[strad]

Other than the fuel limits I have to agree with WhiteBlues above post...but I will be damned if I understand why any of you want to push for fuel economy in the first place but I'm really baffled, after our past experience with fuel limits, why any of you would want to place a limit on the fuel used.
This is racing,,in racing,,we don't need no steeenking fuel economy. Save that for those bleeding hearts that have been sucked in by propaganda.

[autogyro]

The term is fuel efficiency.
Fuel efficiency demands much the same technical development to achieve using less fuel for purpose as it does when increasing the energy output from that fuel.
Anyone involved with developing racing engines knows this.

Fuel economy is a silly sales term.

[aral]

The term is fuel efficiency.
Fuel efficiency demands much the same technical development to achieve using less fuel for purpose as it does when increasing the energy output from that fuel.
Anyone involved with developing racing engines knows this.

Fuel economy is a silly sales term.

What a patronising comment!!