Ecclestone, Di Montezemelo and Todt hold meeting to improve F1

And I would say that in it's self should be enough to keep the tree huggers at bay for a bit, unfortunately having monster petrol guzzling engines would leave F1 open to criticism.

 

Hemp!!...

 

But in this case, the new engine regulations were decided after consultation with the manufacturers. They are the ones who chose that path because it seemed relevant with the concerns of our time. Are they all hippies?

If cars can race at similar pace for a whole GP using 100L instead of 160L, that's a huge improvement, no?

 

60L on 22 cars over 19 race weekends is irrelevant. It's the same as saving 0.000025L on each road going car per year.

Want to make a difference? Figure out a way to save 0.1L per year on a road car. Leave F1 alone.

 

I don't get it how people can get so enamored with the sound of the engines alone and not see what's technologically behind them. These power plants are an engineering marvel producing insane amounts of hp with a tiny engine and very strict restrictions on fuel etc.

If big block NA engine is all you ever wanted from racing then why not stop at a Corvette?

As you say, to each his own.

 

Talk about damning with faint praise.
f1. We don't run out of gas!

At this point they're not even running at full revs. When they're more confident with the new motors consumption may well become a limiting factor.

 

you misunderstood me. the use of the word 'sound' was just a turn of phrase. although i do not like the actual sound of the new f1, what i was trying to state was that a 1.6 litr turbo engine is completely uninteresting to me.

yes, the technology is worthy of respect. but its not exciting, it is not inspiring, it is not thrilling, it is merely interesting.

i remain discontent with the new formula. i dont think there are any advantages to the technology that is being invested in. the real world applications will not save any measurable amounts of fuel, and the whole kers thing is a complete sham given the expense and inefficiencies of the manufacturing process.

if you are solely interested in saving of gasoline, and admiring the tech, then go watch formula e in silence. formula one today is just not a thrill, and i am not looking forward to the technology being applied to road cars.

 

Personally I find that absolutely fascinating: Any idiot can generate hp out of a big block (hence my example with the antiquated Chevy V8). But try producing that out of a tiny engine.
Besides: F1 has been there before. I loved it when Renault brought their first 1.5l turbo and I still am in total awe of the Ferrari 1.5 l turbo. To me that's so much more interesting than a "dumb" 3l NA.

Couldn't disagree more. IMHO hybrids are the way forward for sports and exotic cars: The Ferrari and the Porsche 918 set the bar very high. Others will follow. Using electric engines to get max torque out of low revs is simply brilliant.

PS: I'm not green and couldn't care less how fuel efficient this all is. That's not what interests me.

 

They are producing 1/2 of what they did in 1986, what is so marvelous about that? 600 vs 1200

 

They were using rocket fuel back then and had to swap the engines after each session.

Way different ball game.

Those engines would have put those cars ahead of today's cars on the grid. And then they all would either explode after 10 laps or die of fuel starvation halfway through the race.

 

And that brings up the next point, every year back in the 80's the turbo's were getting more reliable and efficient with 87 being the high point for race power and 88 for efficiency. If they stuck with it, that Formula, then the engineers could have have made new materials (metals)and even liquids (oils and coolants) that would have made them 100% reliable, very efficient and powerful all while sounding great.

That is the biggest problem with F1, always changing the rules just when something is making progress. It's like TPTB have ADD. In 94 they killed the 3.5l when it was sounding great and making big power. 1994 had V12, V10, and V8's on track at the same time.

They should stick with something even this formula BUT take away the engine limits and no matter what they do take away all the aero crap.

 

If engine noise is so important go and stand around at the airport and not the race.

 

Yes and no.

I agree with sticking to a proven formula. That said, the RB domination was getting out of hand and I'm glad they threw the formula on its head and shuffled the cards anew. But that could have been accomplished way cheaper with changing another major component on the car.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1GK6oy8bHI]Michael Schumacher Monza 2003 Pole Lap - YouTube[/ame]

Sorry but a return to this would fix it all Bernie

 

So there we have it. Bernie has now changed his tune and decided the noise is ok live on tv from Bahrain... Translating into English, what he is really saying is 'we are up the creek without a paddle because the engine spec is frozen and no one has the money or appetite to change it for quite some time. So, I have no choice but to pretend the problem doesn't exist and hope it all blows over sharpish.'

 

What did changing the engine config have to do with that. (I am no expert on recent F1) But didn't RB have the same Renault engine as Lotus, Williams, and Caterham? So how could it be the engines fault?

Plus there are ways to intervene with domination w/o costing teams and/or engine builders huge expenses. The scoring mechanism, like they did in the 80's throwing out certain results and only counting a certain number of them, or adding weight to a dominant team's chassis.

 

In one of the last discussions on power I believe that the recent v10's maxxed out at around 970bhp.

 

No, please not 2003 again. One of the most boring years.

 

Renault had a huge problem the last time they changed the engine specs and it cost Vettel a title. I expected the same this year and chances are history will repeat itself.

Very true. As I said, there are other factors to change the pecking order. But adding weight isn't a very popular one.

Personally I would have introduced reversed grid. Works great in other formulas.