WhiteBlue wrote:So let us assume that all stake holders would accept zero downforce. What would be the reason for doing that?
Downforce is, as Ross Brawn called it once, the bane of Formula 1. It makes the braking distances shorter, increases cornering speeds and therefore makes overtaking more difficult. The problem with losing grip while slipstreaming is the worst part.
In order to keep F1 at the top of the heap all other formulae need to agree to a ban of downforce as well.
Indeed. Most of those formulae are feeder series and will have to follow suit. Just as they did in the past with other technologies.
The entertainment value will be seriously affected as all performance categories are slashed.
There's very little reason to assume that the reduced cornering speeds would cause a decline in popularity. Over the past decades the FIA introduced rules to slow down the cars, but did make Formula 1 to lose its popularity. Did the introduction of flat-bottoms, ban on turbo engines, driver aids and the introduction of stepped-flat bottom cause a decline of Formula 1's popularity?
If so, then it's not understandable why MotoGP still enjoys an immense popularity despite being far slower than most autosport series.
With regard to the next engine the question of downforce is already answered. There will be a power slash from 750 to 700 bhp if you consider the electric power in dual torque mode. It means that aero will have less than 10% reduction. They can easily make that up by increased efficiency, so nothing fundamental will change.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
As far as I know Formula 1 wanted to introduce the Global Racing Engine: an 1600cc 4-IL turbo engine that could be used in various racing series. From WTCC to Formula 1, from WRC to Le Mans. WTCC and WRC are to introduce the described configuration next year, but those engines will be production-based. This makes me wonder how 'global' the Global Racing Engine will actually be.
Pingguest wrote:
There's very little reason to assume that the reduced cornering speeds would cause a decline in popularity. Over the past decades the FIA introduced rules to slow down the cars, but did make Formula 1 to lose its popularity. Did the introduction of flat-bottoms, ban on turbo engines, driver aids and the introduction of stepped-flat bottom cause a decline of Formula 1's popularity?
If so, then it's not understandable why MotoGP still enjoys an immense popularity despite being far slower than most autosport series.
It would, for me at least. The way how the cars dodge through the corners is part of the spectacle. I no longer get that with the current cars like I did the V10 cars.
Or the ones with all the flick ups and winglets.
All agility and gracefulness will be gone if the downforce disapears. The amazing braking and grip as well. No matter how good a suspension you can make, you wont have the grip without downforce.
This also takes away the physical challenge for the F1 drivers.
Let me end there though, i don't want to take the topic off the engines.
Pingguest wrote:
There's very little reason to assume that the reduced cornering speeds would cause a decline in popularity. Over the past decades the FIA introduced rules to slow down the cars, but did make Formula 1 to lose its popularity. Did the introduction of flat-bottoms, ban on turbo engines, driver aids and the introduction of stepped-flat bottom cause a decline of Formula 1's popularity?
If so, then it's not understandable why MotoGP still enjoys an immense popularity despite being far slower than most autosport series.
It would, for me at least. The way how the cars dodge through the corners is part of the spectacle. I no longer get that with the current cars like I did the V10 cars.
Or the ones with all the flick ups and winglets.
All agility and gracefulness will be gone if the downforce disapears. The amazing braking and grip as well. No matter how good a suspension you can make, you wont have the grip without downforce.
This also takes away the physical challenge for the F1 drivers.
Let me end there though, i don't want to take the topic off the engines.
Then why on earth do you have the Brabham BT52 in your avatar? That car was considerably slower and hence less spectacular than its predecessor.
Well i've a soft spot for BMW.
I wasn't watching F1 back then either, but with what i've seen, the gobs of power sure as hell makes up for the lack of downforce.
I don't want to see an F1 that lacks horsepower and lacks downforce, that's a lose lose situation.
BMW bread and butter is a straight 6 engines; one of the best sounding engines ever. Can't bring that to F1 for packaging reasons though. But i don't mind the L4 now that we have no choice but a 4cylinder. I'd rather it over a v6 too because i don't like those for some reason.
I've been through both L4 and straight 6 BMWs and I really think BMW should return as an engine supplier, and of couse with the big BMW POWER decal on the rear wings too. I was a williams fan back in the 2000's all because they were using BMW power.
The BMW road L4 are great, especially the twin turbo diesels. But i can't bring myself around to the poor sound of an F1 car with an L4. It's not all bad, i'll learn to get used to it, but it's not great like the v10 or v12 or a straight 6!
But what would be the consequences of using a V8 with direct injection, reduced rpm and mild boost?
The thermal efficiency cannot be improved because bore/stroke would be kept constant in the current over square format.
The turbine energy recovery would be very limited unless compounding is legalized.
The chance to have new manufacturers would be much reduced because existing manufacturers would have a massive advantage.
The engine would have more weight than a new engine for the same power.
It looks like there will be a massive task for Gilles Simon to get all the different stake holders to agree. This could well turn into a fight of Jean Todt vs FOTA. I'm curious if the guy shows some balls and finally makes a stand for his own convictions.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue wrote:I'm curious if the guy shows some balls and finally makes a stand for his own convictions.
You really think Jean Todt is a gutless wonder? He has cleared the FIA offices in Paris of the foul sulphurous stench and most importantly he has done it quietly (unlike his predecessor who was anything but subtle). If he didn't have any balls, then he would surely have bowed to media and fan pressure and would be screwing team for team orders but he has made a stand and has stuck with the unpopular fact that nothing can be done. Todt clearly has the balls to make a stand but he has to do what's best for the sport. Personnal convictions and agendas cannot come into this decision at this moment in time.
Right now engine manufacturers having doubts about staying in F1, towing their line is what's best. Currently the engine manufacturers have the trump cards.
The choice is simple. Change the engine format to please Porsche/VW who may enter F1.
OR
Stick with the current format and keep Cosworth, Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault (who realisticly are committed to F1 for the foreseeable) happy.
it also shows, that you can´t leave this sort of descions to FOTA, as they don´t know what they want.
This was shown with KERS first, and now again with the 2013 engine.
As long as F1 is a good platform (marketing wise) and makes economical sense, people (teams, car manufacturers) will want to be part of it.
Forcing people to spend 100M $ on an engine which produces ~600hp and has no relevance whatsoever to any future road car engine at the current economic climate is just stupid IMHO.
Look at NASCAR to see that manufacturers are not too concerned about road car relevance, and still want to be part of it, as long as the show is good enough.
Or when have you seen the last Toyota with a carb and a live rear axle?
It is also quite funny to note, that the manufacturer which, a present, produces probably the most road going/selling Hybrid cars, did not bother much with it (KERS) in F1.
And the one which pressed hard for it, and made the most noise, was the one who ditched it mid season, because he could not get it to work, and then was running for the door alltogether.
That´s exactly whats going to happen, if you let the manufacturers have a say in this things again. Someone has to have the b... and foresight to protect them for them self. Forget about the "F1 is going to be the test bed of road car technology" myth. First and foremost it has to make economical sense for all parties involved, if it does, it will go on survive and prosper.
Who would stop a business which makes him money?
If you want to see roadcar technology in F1, demand a production based V6 engine(block) with mild turbo charging (ala new Indycar/LMP 2).
Put DI and KERS on top if you like/need and you have a very cost efficient engine with road car relevance, and the power you need for entertaining racing.
On the other hand (if 1.6 ltr. turbo is the way to go), why not allow teams to use both engine concepts in parallel for a year or two.
We had N/A and turbos parallel in F1 before, slowly people will migrate to the I4 turbo, so in xxx wants to start out with a turbo in 2013 o.k. why not, and FI or HRT can still run an older V8.
So new manufacturers can start straight away if they like, others can have a more gentle transition, if they feel they need more time, and still can make some money with there older V8´s to fund the development of the I4.
All what´s needed is a sensible equalisation formula.
STR using the old V10 for another year, did not make many people loosing there sleep about it.
Any car manufacturer has such an engine in production including the likes of KIA/Hyundai
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver." - Colin Chapman
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
