2013 Engine regs agreed: 1.6L turbo 4 cylinder

I agree with that but don't see why bringing turbos back is "dumbing down" the series.

As long as F1 cars remain the fastest cars around a road course I'm happy...well and as long as they don't use Diesel or electric engines for that

 

A large part of F1's appeal is visceral and what excites each of us differs. Speed, type of noise, volume, mechanical spec and among a few mis-guided (but influential) folks "Greenity". Every time there are major changes people worry. Often, but not always, for naught. So far the designers have proven much more clever than the law-makers every time. I have faith.

 

+1000
To each there own right?

 

Yup.
If I can't have exactly what I want no one else should either!

 

Typical...

 

ROFL!

 

Does your mama know yer up so late on a school night?

 

Only two more steps before it devolves down to FF UK.

...Mosely must be peeing on a German prostitute with glee.

 

Turbos are a quick and dirty engineering solution for race car performance.

 

Wow never heard it put like that before but I must disagree. Scavenging lost energy sounds like a great idea/feat to me but too each their own right?

 

You do know, of course, that the current F1 engines get about 30% of their HP from scavenging--without any forced induction.

 

Absolutely not!

Turbos work on the principle of recovery of wasted energy (exhaust) transformed into forced induction, which provides a better combustion than with atmospheric admission.

There is nothing 'dirty' about it, and the turbo application is widespread with success in many combustion engines: cars, trucks, diesels, aero engines, boats, etc...

 

Yes I do but compare that percentage with a forced induction engine.

 

+ a million

If turbos were just "quick and dirty engineering" then why are they used so widespread in where it really matters: the industry where every kilowatt and every penny counts

 

I think that some people still see turbos as a quick fix bolted on an engine to make more power. The sort often found in your J.C. Whitney type catalog.
Those early crude applications have no resemblance to the modern turbo engines that are sophisticated and fully integrated designs.

 

And they have nothing in common with what F1 used in the eighties and is about to use in this decade.

You don't get 1,200+ hp out of 1.5 l with "quick and dirty engineering".

 

True. My question is how many parallels can be drawn between the old F1 monster turbos and the new, greener ones that are coming.

 

I doubt the difference will be noticeable but I forsee a few charts popping up soon. Since the old turbo age ran trick fuel it would really be an injustice to compare the two.

 

Interesting indeed and I'm hoping for the best but we'll see, good post by the way.

 

Tell that to the drivers of the era with respiratory difficulties due to the toluene-based fuels necessary to achieve those results...

Pressurizing the intake charge is a cheap substitute for designing and engineering volumetric efficiency: It's why it's done.