What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[autogyro]

Does anyone know what FIA is concidering transmissionwise?? Will doubleclutch gearboxes be allowed?? i think they should as many carmanufactures are using them and they run more miles per gallon than conventional manual gearboxes.

Where did you get the idea that twin cluch gearboxes give better mpg.
Twin clutch boxes have more rotating parts and more gears in mesh so the torque loss from input to output is higher than on a single layshaft/clutch box.

[WhiteBlue]

When F1 started it reflected the development of motor vehicles in general where there was a defined target, to improve 'performance'.
Today this target has changed, no longer is 'performance' the watch word, it is now 'efficiency'.
F1 has got to change its own 'performance' target to one of 'efficiency' if it wants to survive.

The target for a racing driver and a team must still be crossing the finish line first. The objective for F1 is keeping a performance level that discriminates it from lesser open wheel single seater formulae. What should be changed is the method of regularly curbing excessive performance. The rules for F1 should be written in such a way that performance increases are only possible via efficiency increase. That way the performance curbs can be made by progressive fuel restrictions.

Efficiency? No thanks. I think part of the problem is drivers nursing engines so that they last 3 or 4 races. Personnaly, I want to see drivers pushing themselves and the equipment to the limit (and beyond in some cases) not economy runs. It's F1, not a greenpeace meeting!

Lets not confuse lonevity with efficiency. We do not currently have a situation where each team can afford a 150 million $ engine budget per year. In fact we are far away from that. The teams can probably just cope with 5-8 million engine budgets and that leaves no room to change the longevity rules in F1. If we ever get back to 13 engine manufacturers who all supply their team partners foc with competing engines and collectively absorb one or two billion $ of development and manufacturing cost F1 can go back to single race engines and even qualifying engines. I'm certain we are far away from that state of affairs. So we should not kid ourselves with wet dreams of things we can't have.

[hecti]

The current plan for four cylinder 1,5 L twin turbos with integrated regeneration, modern combustion technologies 670 bhp power (including regen) looks like a step in the right direction. All they need to do now is increase mechanical grip, get rid of most of the aero and use non sticky tyres. Tyres must be so hard that very little rubber goes on the racing line and no marbles are off the line. Then the cars are over powered again and racing will be much more fun.

I feel that you just contradicted your self. You say more mechanical grip, but also hard non sticky tires. Having hard tires will reduce mechanical grip.
Also:
670hp, seriously...? this is just pathetic!! It sounds so ordinary:
f1 fan: "the new cars have 670 hp, including kers!!"
evo x driver: "...thats what i get..and i dont even have kers..."
^tuned evo

[autogyro]

Hahahahahaha :^o

[010010011010]

Hahahahahaha :^o

Yeah you go laugh, but at the end of the day F1 is meant to be impressive and with 650bhp turbo engines it wont be to the normal person. Sure the engines last alot longer and are more efficent and advanced, but that's the stuff that only we'll know and/or care about. When i say 'we' i mean us, the nerds.

So go on laughing at what others have to say, ignorance is bliss

[WhiteBlue]

I feel that you just contradicted your self. You say more mechanical grip, but also hard non sticky tires. Having hard tires will reduce mechanical grip.

The sticky tyres do not have mechanical grip, they rely on chemical plasticizers to make the tyres sticky or gluey. I do not want hard tyres per se but tyres that have cleaner grip so that the racing line and the rest of the track do not get extremely different grip.

Horse power is easy to come by. Just throw a 960 bhp V8 into a Corvette and you are done with at a fraction of what an F1 car costs. But you don't get the performance. As long as lower power gets me the same performance with less fuel use I have no objections. Those people who have objections probably will not take the time to take a good look.

[010010011010]

As long as lower power gets me the same performance with less fuel use I have no objections. Those people who have objections probably will not take the time to take a good look.

Yeah but theres something about a nissan sunny being able to get 500bhp using a turbo when an f1 car is making 670bhp because they want their engines to last that seems just wrong to me.

And of course the rest of the car is far more advanced and therefore will be much quicker, but on the engine side of things F1 just wont be hugely impressive

[autogyro]

I had over 600 bhp (accurate figure) in my 351 Cleveland Mustang in 1974.
It also had way more torque than a silly little Jap thing on steroids.
I would no more believe that car would catch an F1 car as trying to catch one on a push bike.

[010010011010]

Maybe you should stop to READ more often,

And of course the rest of the car is far more advanced and therefore will be much quicker

[010010011010]

Furthermore the reason i picked

a silly little Jap thing on steroids.

was because it has a similar displacement (1600) turbo engine in it to the purposed (1500) F1 engine.

So just to clarify for you, the point of the post was to show that the new F1 engines wont seem as advanced since you can extract a similar level of power from what is a very basic family car without much know how.

[autogyro]

If you want bhp and speed, go watch fuel dragsters and funny cars.
There is nothing more powerful or faster.
This has been the case for decades, so the comparison has always been there.
I can see no argument that is based on any stated specific bhp figure for F1 cars.
It is irelevent on its own in any regulations for a top formula.
Tuning an engine (and the complete car) for performance is almosy exactly the same as tuning for efficiency. In fact to increase an engines power, you have got to make that engine use fuel more efficiently or you will get nowhere.

[autogyro]

Apart from some materials, stroke to bore ratio and build quality F1 engines are no more advanced than many other types of IC engine. A current F1 engine produces no more torque than a three series BMW.
Reciprocating internal combustion engines are 19th century technology and the peak of development was during and just after the second world war with aero engines. These had huge power outputs and only turbine engines have exceeded the figures but at a huge cost in fuel burnt and environmental pollution.
It is only through increased efficiency that ic engines in motor sport and F1 can hope to do better than the ic aero engines and reach the peak of ice development.

[010010011010]

Tuning an engine (and the complete car) for performance is almosy exactly the same as tuning for efficiency. In fact to increase an engines power, you have got to make that engine use fuel more efficiently or you will get nowhere.

=D> w really!

So the fact that the almost the only thing that will make an f1 engine better than, as you said yourself, 'a silly little Jap thing on steroids' is the length of time it will last for and its fuel economy, and that doesnt bother you?

[Holm86]

Does anyone know what FIA is concidering transmissionwise?? Will doubleclutch gearboxes be allowed?? i think they should as many carmanufactures are using them and they run more miles per gallon than conventional manual gearboxes.

Where did you get the idea that twin cluch gearboxes give better mpg.
Twin clutch boxes have more rotating parts and more gears in mesh so the torque loss from input to output is higher than on a single layshaft/clutch box.

I've just read this a couple of places. But i guess its only true on the DSG7 but that will probably be because of the extra gear.

But still think they should be allowed ad many carmanufactures use them.

[autogyro]

There is no point in using twin clutch gearboxes in F1.
They would be less efficient, slower on shift speed, heavier, bulkier and more likely to fail.