F1 will see a complete change in engine regulations in 2014, and we're having a closer look at what that means exactly
Now that's the biggest error with the rule makers today. Now we have the only way on what engines are used, the only way the cars look, the only way the races are won from the strategy point of view etc etc etc.halllo_fireball wrote:The 4 cyl engine formula doesn't make any sense at all. If somebody really wants F1 to become greenish, than the only way would be....
THISPandamasque wrote:Give the teams the amount of fuel per race and let them decide whether to use a turbo i4, a supercharged V8, V12, a 4-rotor or a shockwave engine. Now that would be fun.
You mentioned fighter planes, things that exist for combat and nothing else. I naturally assumed you meant combat. For the record, whenever you talk about racing cars I naturally assume you mean as they pertain to racing on a race track. If you are in fact discussing them in terms of their static display properties I would appreciate it if you would mention that, as it does impact the discussion.ringo wrote:When was i talking about combat?Sayshina wrote: Ringo, during your refueling defense you made a comparison to fighter aircraft. You are in reality wrong there. A very large internal fuel load has historically been a deciding factor in air combat, ...
I am talking about range and fuel efficiency. And even in combat a lighter plane is a more agile plane. A large internal fuel load is a decider in what way?
explain that because if you have 2 F15 battling it out and 1 has half the fuel load, it will be more agile and be able to climb faster.
Energy. If you're at a higher elevation that's potential energy. If you're going faster that's kinetic energy, and if you have more fuel available that's potential energy again. You need to remember aircraft, and racing cars too for that matter, bleed off massive amounts of energy whenever they change vectors. That energy has to be replaced, and planes, unlike cars, do not have any efficient means of speeding back up. At full power a combat aircraft can burn through it's entire fuel load in seconds.Energy in what sense?
More energy doesn't mean more fuel efficient. Any vehicle that refuels insteading of hauling a large mass of fuel for whatever purpose, will be lighter, smaller and have better performance.
It's not the tank that weighs 250kg, a huge empty tank weighs barely more than a tiny empty tank. The cars would use smaller tanks, but strictly for aero reasons, which is why I said it only applies to F1. In other formulae where most cars tend to have lots of spare internal volume anyway they also tend to use the maximum allowed fuel tank size. Why not? unused tank volume is basically free.You are talking as if if refueling returns the teams will keep the same huge 250kg tanks. They wont.
If your fighter has lots of internal fuel volume and I need to refuel to make it home you can kill me without ever even getting close to me. I can't refuel as long as you're anywhere nearby, so I have to chase you away, I have no choice. And every time I do, you can simply run away. I can't chase very far because remember, I don't have any fuel, and I can't refuel because you keep hanging around like my crazy ex. So I die.If an fighter plane can make do with a small fuel tank and take 3 refuling stops in mid air. I don't see the need to have a tank 3 times the size on the aircraft.
If that were true Semi trucks would have no need for 300 gallons of tankage. In fact, taken to its logical conclusion we should all be driving 50cc fuel tank cars. After all, there's a fuel stop on nearly every block.We don't see whatever you are talking about in F1 or in street vehicels becuase what you are saying is not reality. Refueling is the cheapest most effective way to improve fuel efficiency. Not only that, but the cars can be pushed to the limit for the whole race.
I know that was your attempt at sarcasm, but honestly it wouldn't change much. You'd have slower qualifying, which the fans would cry about for a few weeks, and you'd have a lot less rubbering in, but that's about it. I suspect we're probably less than 20 years away from having exactly that.For drivers to push all out is anti racing. I want to see the rule changes make it mandatory to fuel the car once for the whole weekend and see how you like your racing.
You seem to have missed my point, which was that it was introduced and banned for exactly the same reason, the organizers were attempting to artificially change the races.Exactly no refueling is boring.
Well, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but you should know that a majority of fans when polled found refueling confusing and annoying. As far as "lap times mean nothing now" I guess that's the tradeoff. Under refueling track position meant nothing. You're a math guy, so perhaps it's not a surprise you'd like the minutia.I don't see it like that. Passing in the pits was exciting. I want both passing in the pits and in the race. Passing in the pits gets the viewers more involved and interested in lap times. Lap times mean nothing now without refueling
You can't say beter. You can say the rules, as they where back then, favored the Turbos.zeph wrote: Everybody switched to turbo power because it was better.
+2Pandamasque wrote:Give the teams the amount of fuel per race and let them decide whether to use a turbo i4, a supercharged V8, V12, a 4-rotor or a shockwave engine. Now that would be fun.
The only thing better than getting the V10 wail back, would be to accompany it with 2-stroke screamers, diesel baritones, big OHV V8 thunder, whooshing turboshafts, warbling rotaries, explosive anti-lag turbos with compressor surge chirps, a NASA supplied 2L sodium cooled beryllium V16 with a 30k RPM redline, some maniac with a pulse detonation engine blown diffuser and some eerily quiet series hybrids.Pandamasque wrote:Give the teams the amount of fuel per race and let them decide whether to use a turbo i4, a supercharged V8, V12, a 4-rotor or a shockwave engine. Now that would be fun.
Ol' Joe Sewer is now an oracle?WhiteBlue wrote: ...
If you don't believe me have a look at Joe's blog. He knows the politics of F1 inside out. The 2013 engines are a done deal. No sniping by Bernie and Ferrari will change that.
If it would be done deal teams would not been "evaluating different options" for so long, and there would not be so much fear within OEMs rules could be changed or their introduction delayed.WhiteBlue wrote:The 2013 engines are a done deal. No sniping by Bernie and Ferrari will change that.
WhiteBlue wrote:I think you are missing the main point which I have mentioned. It is about money. Bernie desperately needs to split the teams in order to prevent them negotiating a bigger share of the FOM revenues. He will reinforce every controversy that he can find in the next few months. Just consider his comments about the number of teams needed. Hispania has already left FOTA. If he can get more minions to drop out of the organization Bernie will be happy.
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/ ... are-rules/
If you don't believe me have a look at Joe's blog. He knows the politics of F1 inside out. The 2013 engines are a done deal. No sniping by Bernie and Ferrari will change that.
