Big thick tyres, v12 engines, 22 000 rpm, reverse grids, 3 cars per team...damn.. :D
New turbo era anyone? There are a lot of production cars going that way and racing does improve the breed. Qualifying motors? Active aero?
I'm torn between technology and too much driver aid. I want the cars to be the pinnacle of design, but at the same time, I think traction control, adjustable break bias, adjustable aero, etc. is too much car and not enough driver. I say no limit on hp. Run what you brung, but limit the driver aids. I want my cake and eat it too.
Bridgestone may have a contract to supply F1, but it's not a contract to not supply anyone else. Firestone (owned by Bridgestone) supplies Indy. They can lose that "chinese menu" (one from column "A", ...) tire rule. That just creates meaningless "passes" by putting the cars on inappropriate compounds during different portions of the race. The new series could even go back to multiple suppliers. (If so, there needs to be some sort of "wear factor" rating, to prevent the blow-out issues the ultralight Michelins had --- not just the Indy six car fiasco, but issues all that year.) Adjustable brake bias is part of nearly every racing series. Did you mean automatic or electronic brake bias controls? (Versus the manual valve adjustment most racing cars use?)
They should try to limit the dirty air behind a car (no diffusers, limited wing sizes and shapes). Also they should investigate if it's possible to improve overtaking on the 'dirty' parts of the track (harder tires = less rubber marbles?).
We want big engine blow ups with lots of smoke, fire, and steam again! BLAMMO!!! AKA: No more penalties for engines grenading... push the envelope again.
I think the engine specs won't differ too much from what we have now. There won't be huge V12 anymore, that era is over.
It's "KA-BLAMMMO!" [Matchett had that call down!] That'll go a long way towards "reducing costs"!....... Not saying I wouldn't like to see it, just saying.....
I don't think so. The manufacturers will be saving as much money as they can and try to do some research usable for their road cars. We'll rather see small turbo V6 engines than V10.
From an engineering point of view, creating an engine that revs up to 18000rpm and lasts 3 races is a lot more challenging than designing one that only has to last 300km. "Pushing the envelope" has more dimensions than "raw power"!
+1 Unfortunately, I've got to agree...... Little turbo's with unlimited revs could get interesting though. [And, less weight, which would further encourage KERS - But, we're in the minority on that I believe Florian ] In the short term they'll stay where they are though - Makes sense. Cheers, Ian
+1 In fact, didn't SV break the outright record today?..... With a rev-limited, gotta-last-3-races, and be-made-available-to-anyone-for-5MM engine...... [Is is 5 or 12 this year? Whatever, it's pretty impressive IMHO.] Also got me thinking - The manufacturer teams can use this approach to help "sell it" to their BOD's - "It really can improve the breed!". Cheers, Ian
True. And watching someone balance a beer bottle on their forehead for 3 days takes more talent than doing it for 1 minute and have it ending up crashing to the floor. It's just less interesting to watch. Go back to Colin Chapman's idea of pushing the envelope of minimalism. Sometimes you win, somethings you guess wrong. With ultimate risk there is the ultimate reward.
You're shifting your focus now from "pushing the envelope" to "big spectacle"! Nothing wrong with that, but the point (that you agree with) that the current engines are greater engineering achievents than the old ones remains. Ian, I don't know if SV broke the record, but if he did so, a lot of the credit goes to the slicks. If the 900hp cars of some years ago had had them, they'd have crushed today's time.
Nascar race engines produce about 900 HP, F1 Engines produce about 900HP. Could the rules be set to allow big pushrod engines as well as the small displacement Race engines. It could open them up to a potentially HUGE group of race fans, that currently have no interest in foreign cars.
Sorry - No! - The first problem is a Nascar lump weighs, what, 3x an F1 motor? - That's a guess, but I suspect a Nascar engine (and ancilliaries) weighs about the same as an entire F1 car - Slight exaggeration here! - But you get the idea - Can't happen [IMHO] Cheers, Ian
What do you think about a different production based engine as a base? F430, BMW V8, AMG v8, Lambo V10 etc.
Also they only rev to 9k RPM and the car weighs 3,400 lbs or 1,542 KG vs about 650KG for a F1 car with fuel. http://www.hendrickmotorsports.com/tech_engine_vr360.asp?bhcp=1 Image Unavailable, Please Login
I would think that most of the weigh in a Nascar is in the tube frame, steel wheels, suspension etc. There is a fair amount of F1 technology inside these engines, despite the fact that they use push rods. They are also HP limited by the carburetors that fuel the engine. A Formula that allowed for parity in performance for engines based on production cars and scratch built motors could be interesting. Allowing production based motors would allow smaller teams more options. RPM is irrelevant, the amount of usable power is what makes a race car fast. I think there is a low revving Audi diesel race car that goes pretty quick. The formula should define the size of the box that the car would fit in, min weight, fuel capacity, and displacement (for engine type).
