Ok guys, I really need to get this out of my chest. I keep reading about the controversy of the new rules. I understand that there is some teams that are having financial problems, and with Ford now retiring they will not have even an engine, but in my opinion now we are touching the ridicoulus. 1) I watch every race in F1, because I love the trill to see those beautiful car challenge btw them at speed over 300 Km/h. I want drivers to be safe that's a MUST; but do not tell me that they are going too fast. If you will decrease the speeds [as Max Mosley says by *a lot*] soon you will be able to put in an Enzo and it will be faster. 2) I truly do not understand about the 2.4 V8, I do not see how you can save money. With a bigger engine you would think that the wear is less than with a small one Ok I got it out Cheers ilo
The change to smaller engines is to allow reduce speed and so have more overtaking... IMHO the argument of reducing costs is nonsense; all rule changes regarding engines in the past resulted in higher engine costs (remember 1988, when turbo's were phased out for atmosferic engines?). It will cost a lot to build a competetive 2.4 V8....
Ah, let's just go back to: 1) no aerodynamic tricks, no wings 2) no electronics 3) 6-inch wide tires 4) drum brakes That'll even it out!
I'd love to watch MS's face during the first braking effort if they changed his car to drum brakes ... it would be priceless. With modern engine power they would have to start braking before they accelerated Pete
The 2.4 ltr engine is all about slowing them down (ie. smaller engine) and NOT increasing costs. You see the cost in making and engine comes from the R&D and all the effort in sizing the bore and stroke and getting the combustino chamber right, etc. This would not change from a v10 of 3ltrs ... thus they could in theory use exactly the same bore and stroke and chamber designs and thus not have to start again. Thus it is not about reducing costs but not say changing to 2.5 ltrs and thus having to start from a clean sheet of paper and do massive R&D. To change to a 2.5 ltr engine would require massive computer simulation, probably a single cylinder test engine to be built (or 3 or 5, etc.) and about 6 months later they would have it sussed. With the 2.4 they do not need to do that at all ... just use the same design as the 3 ltr v10, and cast new heads, blocks, etc. (They cast new engines all the time ... so that side is cheap). Pete
Pete tnx for the info, but just reading from what Thiessen says the 2.4 would not reduce the costs. Look for example at Ferrari they had to throw away all the R&D that they have done for 2005 season and start from scratch. [I know that that was not for the engine but for the aerodynamic]. But still now you can see at Imola the Ferrari touching 360 Km/h which IMO is pretty thrilling. REMEMBER: I want driver SAFE But if the driver say more than once that they do not want speed descreased and that they feel safe now, why they need to reduce speeds. Ferrari is better they do their job excellent. Why when Williams and after Mclaren were winning race after race, with Mika Hakkinnen starting from the front and almost lapping almost everybody. But then Ferrari was not complaining, but now everybody complains because Ferrari it is too strong. I'm sorry but they should now lower the bar so that the other team can compete. The other teams should raise their bar. Cheers ilo
ilo, Agree with everything you have said, BUT I am actually infavour of reducing the engine size. F1 does not need to be like drag racing and have mega 1000's of hp ... ie. it is not just an engine game. Also regarding your comment that Thiessen said about the 2.4 ltr NOT reducing costs ... again it never was supposed to, just NOT increase costs. We also have to remember that Thiessen (ie. BMW) want to maintain the v10 configuration because of the M5 road car, etc. Do we really want F1 restricted to a certain engine configuration JUST because BMW make road cars in that configuration. I say fnck off BMW . Lets look into the future. Lets say we stick with the 3 ltr current size. With the progress of development in say 5 years time the engines will probably be making 1500hp ... do we really want this to continue? Why not continue F1 to be the technical tour deforce and make the engine guys work HARDER and thus reduce the engine size. If we reduce them to 2.4 (or 2.5 whatever) in a couple of years they will be making 900 hp again ... and F1 will be FASTER than it is now Then we will all be able to be completely amazed and discuss these amazing F1 engines in the pub, etc. Progress dictates that EVENTUALLY the engine size needs to be reduced. As far as engine configuration goes ... I do not care, it should not be set by the rules IMO. Do what you like, 1 cylinder, twin, 20 cylinders ... I don't care, but please, please lets not stick to v10 just because BMW selling fncken road cars with this configuration (that has absolutely nothing to do with the F1 engine BTW, other than it is a 10 cylinder). There is nothing orgasmic about a 10 cylinder engine. Just happens to work well for the current cars, ie. the cooling requirements, fuel usage, etc. Everybody keeps talking about the v10 as though we have discovered a new form of petrol powered engines, like the rotary or turbine ... nothing new at all, just 10 x 4 stroke cylinders ... whoopy **** . Pete
