zac510 wrote:
That 'Lexus' is probably the new Supra or something.
Some say it is the new supra, some say that it is a replacement for the Lexus SC430, and some say it will just be the IS500 (doesn't look like the IS series)
Ted68 wrote:
* GPMA has setup a working group to examine possible future rules for Formula One which will allow a performance advantage to be obtained by means of more efficient use of available energy. These future regulations may include changes to current power units. The FIA and other engine suppliers will join this group.[/i]
This may be a stupid question, but where does F1 stand on the subject of a HEMI engine? When you think about it, HEMI engines make better use of the fuel available (something Max was talking about in his latest propaganda letter in the August's issue of F1 racing) so could teams be allowed to toy around with this idea?
One thing that always makes me laugh is how he is so retarted that he doesn't understand that if a team wants to spend $400 million, they will find a way to do it...
On the HEMI: I'm not so sure you could realistically make a HEMI engine with 32 valves. But is it in the rules that engines have to be flatheads?
On the engine freeze: Just stupid. Mosley might as well go ahead and try to make F1 a spec series. I mean, that's what he's doing anyway. There's no sense in trying to hide it.
Yeah, I knew that they had to be cylinders with no domes on top. But Max says that he would be willing to consider any design change which would promote better fuel efficiency.
What I didn't know is that HEMI wouldn't work with 32 valves...you feel like going into details?
EDIT: Wouldn't that be that 4 valves/cylinder...isn't that what some of the cars have in them?
Last edited by f1.redbaron on 08 Aug 2006, 02:28, edited 1 time in total.
f1.redbaron wrote:One thing that always makes me laugh is how he is so retarted that he doesn't understand that if a team wants to spend $400 million, they will find a way to do it...
Or: He doesn't care, and uses the cost-cutting excuse as a way to turn F1 into some kind of GP2 clone that rakes in more money.
In any case, as you say, teams will find ways to keep spending. The way to limit expenditure is to limit budget, simple as that. In combination with a less limiting ruleset, thismight also provide some very interesting technical developments and show more different approaches by the teams.
f1.redbaron wrote:What I didn't know is that HEMI wouldn't work with 32 valves...you feel like going into details?
EDIT: Wouldn't that be that 4 valves/cylinder...isn't that what some of the cars have in them?
Some engines incorrectly labeled HEMIs use four valves per cylinder, but those are actually "pentroof" engines. The top of the combustion chamber in those look like upside down cones rather than domes.
The HEMI, as far as I know, can't use four valves per cylinder because there's no way to evenly place the valves around the combustion chamber. They all end up at different angles. Imagine trying to design a camshaft or a manifold for that.
The original HEMI was an advancement in OHV V8 combustion chambers. Most engines of that type had two valves, and due to rocker head design, were in line, giving a wedge or flatter head design of the combustion chamber. The HEMI had the valves canted giving a hemipheriscal combustion chamber. This allowed much larger valves, and an efficient combustion chamber. But that was a very long time ago, and engine technology has come a longs ways. Any current HEMI labelling is more marketing hype than anything special.
Older OHC engines, like the Cosworth DVF had a hemispherical combustion chamber. But the newer engines have the valves inclined less radically, giving an almost flat piston and combustion chamber. Technology marches on, and the new designs are better and make more power.
If you give the combustion chamber a hemispherical combustion chamber, then the piston has to have a matching contour, which would have a lot more mass. I don't think it would be possible to get a piston with that requirement much ability to rev to the current stratospheric RPM's we now see. And the combustion chamber would have to be very tight to achieve decent compression ratios, most likely giving problems in gas flow, flame travel, potential hot spots, and scavenging.
Why couldn't they just limit the amount of fuel used per race to achieve the desired rpm/horspower reduction. It seems a more natural way of solving their dilemma. It will promote conservation and efficiency at the same time from the manufacturers and the drivers. It will also make the race less of an all out sprint which is a bit boring when its the same fastest teams every time.
It was interesting to see Prost race in the eighties for Mclaren managing some fastest laps and at the same time having to conserve fuel. Who could forget Mansell after he collapsed in Dallas when his car ran out of fuel a hundred meters from the finish line during the first year of fuel reductions.
No wait, i guess this would all be too simple for the FIA. This idea'r wouldn't leave any room for politics and cheating....
Why not just have a restricor plate, to limit incoming air? Or an FIA supplied, fixed capacity fuel pump? Personally, I like the fuel pump concept, it makes it very difficult to cheat.
This is interesting, it is an answer on question from Renault blog given to one of the fans ...
RF1 Paddock Pass wrote:It should be noted that the statement concerning an engine freeze at China currently has no regulatory value. As it currently stands, the engine freeze does not apply to 2007 - and the frozen engines to be used in 2008 date from June. Some more politics need to happen before it's official.
Wow, so it's not really official the engine freeze starting at China this season. Well, if they want to make it official they will have to hurry. The season is almost over.
Formula 1, 57, died Thursday, Sept. 13, 2007
Born May 13, 1950, in Silverstone, United Kingdom
Will be held in the hearts of millions forever
Rest In Peace, we will not forget you
