- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
F1 will see a complete change in engine regulations in 2014, and we're having a closer look at what that means exactly
I thought Ferrari would have made the same system variable length.Blaze1 wrote:The Ferrari system was similar to that and sat in the 'V', however it wasn't directly connected to the intake ports and its placing didn't allow the use of variable intakes.
F1Access Agent (Formula One Digital Media Ltd)
Feb 12, 15:39
Please kindly note that the sound equipment trackside is handled by each circuit - we believe they do their best to ensure visitors have the best possible experience during F1 races.
I remain at your disposal should you have any other question.
Haha of courseFW17 wrote:Indirect means a water intercooler.
...because it is not like there are 22 microphones track-in that provide the sound that people actually complain about...mclaren111 wrote:Engine sound quality on TV:
I asked FOM on improving sound and this was their reply:
F1Access Agent (Formula One Digital Media Ltd)
Feb 12, 15:39
Please kindly note that the sound equipment trackside is handled by each circuit - we believe they do their best to ensure visitors have the best possible experience during F1 races.
I remain at your disposal should you have any other question.
TC Same thoughts. As a student I had an interesting discussion with a Porsche engineer about 935, and the same subject. Unfortunately they couldn't fit all the required plumbing in the engine bay of a 911 body.Tommy Cookers wrote:why should a re-circ BOV (if allowed) be inefficient ?
our world changed when Porsche turbo'ed the 917, producing the first road circuit-raceable turbo (ovals-only till this)
iirc due to their innovation - the recirc BOV - keeping up turbo rpm
Exactly! You would think that they all had spare electrical energy to send to MGU-K.hurril wrote:And how would you do that without also NOT generating anymore electric energy?Facts Only wrote:Because you are just pumping air round in a circle, if you don't need any more compressed air then the most efficient thing to do is to not compress anymore air.
This is quite interesting idea. The penalization in the worst case is to start from end of the field (IIRC) so if some manufacturer decide to ditch reliability and go for pure power can this be an solution? If some manufacturer make a PU which last only for 2-3 race weekends it could be interesting. There will be few more penalizations but not so much...WaikeCU wrote:If Honda produces an engine that makes the MP4-31 go 1 second faster than the Mercedes on race trim, but only lasts one race weekend, then what? Would it make sense that they start each race at the back of the grid because of changing power units and still manages to score lots of points because they are so much quicker than the rest, so they'll be coming back in point scoring positions in no time during the race?
According to Rob White, they dont use those sliding trumpets that go up and down which they used in F1 in the past. They're too long with a long stroke and take too much place. He said some road cars that use these, have a rotating device that is a compromise for gaz passage. What device does he mean?FW17 wrote:I thought Ferrari would have made the same system variable length.Blaze1 wrote:The Ferrari system was similar to that and sat in the 'V', however it wasn't directly connected to the intake ports and its placing didn't allow the use of variable intakes.
Their V10 system was amazing even though turbo engines need longer pipes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRZW31F7McY
RPM, you want longer intake runners at low RPM, and shorter at high RPM.FW17 wrote:What is the trumpet length dependent on?
Holm86 wrote:RPM, you want longer intake runners at low RPM, and shorter at high RPM.FW17 wrote:What is the trumpet length dependent on?
It could also be dependent on load.
They could use last years loop hole and take a new PU in every session to build up a buffer of units for the rest of the year, thereby minimizing their penalty affected races.Mr.G wrote:Taken from a different thread...
This is quite interesting idea. The penalization in the worst case is to start from end of the field (IIRC) so if some manufacturer decide to ditch reliability and go for pure power can this be an solution? If some manufacturer make a PU which last only for 2-3 race weekends it could be interesting. There will be few more penalizations but not so much...WaikeCU wrote:If Honda produces an engine that makes the MP4-31 go 1 second faster than the Mercedes on race trim, but only lasts one race weekend, then what? Would it make sense that they start each race at the back of the grid because of changing power units and still manages to score lots of points because they are so much quicker than the rest, so they'll be coming back in point scoring positions in no time during the race?