http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1313599/Ozone-layer-longer-disappearing-return-strength-2048.html Righty-o, first order of business: Those 4 cilinder turbo 1.5's proposed for 2013? Please forget about that idea. Let's give all the teams 250 liters of 100 octane pure petrolium per car per race. It's a design your own engine competition with no restrictions! Turbo V8's, high revving 3.5 liter V10s, little aero... LETS GO RACING!!!
Oh, if only it were that simple! - Are you allowed to refuel? - Any restrictions on how many engines you can use? [Can you use"quali" engines?] - Please try and define "little aero"...... Having said all that, I'm with you 100% on the "limited" amount of fuel & use it as you see fit approach - Then, also make a big deal about *reducing* that amount every season - Say, 5%/year for a few years.... Cheers, Ian
I kinda like refueling to be honest, but that's probably because there's no tire war at the moment, which means everyone does the same stops, and everyone is saving fuel thus saving tires... 1 engine per weekend maximum. If it blows up during practice or qualifying, tough, and a 10 place grid penalty. If it blows up during the race, tough...because you won't score any points . Little aero: smaller front and rear wings. No stupid aero deflectors which mess up aero behind the car. Reduce the fuel to 215 liters after 3-5 years, allow them to get big power from the cars again. I recon with the technology we have now, we'll see some silly high power cars (1000+ N/A 3.0-3.5 V10's, probably even higher powered boosted cars...)
+1 I don't think we're gonna see a tire war for a few years at least - IIRC, it was the FIA that decided that there be a sole supplier. I guess I'd vote for refueling, but it doesn't really bother me either way. Apparently, the refueling rigs basically had their own 747 on fly-aways....... I can go with that. [In the "early days", say season one, I'd be a little more lenient though - say, 3 engines for 2 races....] This is (IMHO) a real tough one.... Anything punching a hole in the air at, say, >100 mph leaves a pretty significant "dirty" hole in it's wake.... Add in the open wheels that mess it all up, and these things are really dirty aerodynamically. *Maybe* they could limit total downforce? I'm pretty sure they're reading the relevant data already..... Dunno if it would help in the "mythical" quest for more overtaking, but it might be interesting..... Or, you "let 'em at it" and go with active suspension etc (?) Indeed. How many could afford it will probably remain no more than a debating point however. Unfortunately. Cheers, Ian
I think this needs a new thread. If you limit total downforce I would think you would have to test all of the cars in a wind tunnel and then freeze the aero for a period of time. I am not sure that is what F1 is about. I like the constant development and that would kill most of it.
"Repaired ozone layer" seems to have it covered I too like the constant development, and certainly don't want it stymied. However, my "theory" is that the teams (and hence the FIA/Charlie) already know how much downforce they're generating second by second when the cars running - I'm sure it's being captured - A WAG says "2000lbs" max... The "new" rules say "your car is not allowed to generate more than 1000lbs of downforce at any time during the event." - If you do, penalties range from a drive-thru, stop & go's thru to black flag depending on how much you're over - These #'s (whatever the TWG comes up with) are published, and streamed to the internet, live, for all to see Cheers, Ian
I think the way to address all the gasoline issues and/or refueling is to use "pure pump gas". That is, no earlier than one week before the race, a tanker truck is sent out and gets enough gass for all the teams for the weekend at some local gas station in the highest quality that station serves. The station is chosen at random, and every team uses teh same gas, and no team knows before the race which gas station will be chose. No adjustments to the ECU are allowed to compensate for the gas on hand. This gets rid of the tolulene, xylene, benzene, and other dense aromatics and special brews, and gets rid of the horseplay of testing the gas--every team uses gas from the SAME POT, and no team knows what is in the pot. Based on the Wright book, a modern F1 engine will loose about 50 HP if made to run on actual pump gasoline, but will run just fine.
Please familiarize me with said book - What's the date of this data? I'm not arguing, but my understanding is they're damn close to "regular" (albeit 105 octane?) gas - Like 99.9% the same (?) It's unleaded, and since 2008 has to have just under 6% "biomass" (whatever the hell that is!). Now, a few years back they were running that nasty **** you mentioned - Remember when the refuelling guys wore breathing apparatus? But those days are long gone... Cheers, Ian
LOL - I honestly thought when I saw this thread title that the subject was going to be an appeal to restore the legality of using Freon gas to inflate F1 tires... Freon, Ozone layer, get it? Oh, well.
Peter Wright wrote a book detailing the 2000-2006 seasons with Ferrari (3.0 litre V10s) with unprecedented coverage of engine technology, transmission evolution, aerodynamic evolutions, team organization,.... IN the early-mid Turbo years, they were actually running fuel that was not something you wanted to touch your skin {tolulene, benzene, xylene}. After a few bad episodes, the rules were changed so that the gasoline had to "ping" in the research engine at the same point that 102 pump gas would "ping". The research engine has a variable compression ratio and is adjusted until the gasoline "pings" and this compression ratio determines the "effective octane". Anyways, modern F1 fuel has a mixture of heavy distilates and light aromatics with the effect that the research engine "pings" at the proper compression. However, the research engine runs at 1,750 RPMs, so there are a number of differences with an engien running at 17,500 RPM fuel burning that can be taken advantage of. One of which is that F1 race fuel contains 8-10% more BTUs/gallon than 102 pump gas. It remains legal because it "pings" at the right point.
I have his "Ferrari F1, under the skin of the championship winning F1-2000" volume - But it sounds like you're referring to something else? Interesting, thanks. I seem to recall the FIA having a "research engine", but didn't know that was why. However, I'm pretty sure that today they're not running any of these "rocket fuels" - They are limited to 102RON, unleaded, low sulphur. And it had better test identically to the sample you gave the FIA before the event. But, I don't believe that's coming from "funny fuel" (?) I don't think they have the latitude, do they? Incidentally, while "researching" the rocket fuel era, I came across this - Not a bad read IMO: http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/turbo-era-f1-facts-and-fictions/9777/page1/ Among other things, it seems to "confirm" the "seasoned block" stories about which I was always skeptical.... (?) Cheers, Ian
Everything you never really wanted to know about gasoline: http://www.turborick.com/gsxr1127/gasoline.html See section 10.2 on the Honda Fuel: 84% tolulene 16% heptane. And, yes these kinds of fuel lead to the rule for 102 semi-real pump gas. But chicanery remains involved.
