Petition Bring back V10's now!
Personally, I would be fine with 4 cylinder engines without rev, sound, or fuel limits. If the 10 cylinder engines were brought back they would be so limited (by rules) that we would miss the good ol' 6-cylinder days.
If the power is somewhat equal, I don't really care that they would be limited in upgrading. The noise will be spectacular.
Stuff kers and ers, let's have racing again. I won't buy a car with Eco-crap on it anyway, I don't do enough miles to care about fuel. My merc has a stop/start button that has never been on, pointless waste of time. They don't race on Sunday, sell on Monday anymore, so let's just have fantastic fast, noisy races again until the green lobby ban it for good
Nice idea but a better petition would be one to rid ourselves of Jean Todt. Do nothing concensus waste of a leader. Please petition his azz out of F1.
Personally, I am against imposing the number of cylinders. V6, V8, V10, V12 or else can race together under the same capacity limit; they all have advantages and drawbacks.
Boxers, in-line, let 'em all have a chance. Configuration should be free. These ridiculous rules stifle engineering creativity and the notion that they reduce costs is a myth. It cost more to maximize a design within tight regulatory constrictions than it does to start with a clean slate. And virtual testing costs no less than track testing.
I think back in around 95 or so engine devs basically decided that the V10 would be the best configuration. Only thing that was left to sort out was the angle of the engine, ranging from between 72 to 111, but almost all but renault having resorted to 90 degree by 2005.
Coming between the V8 and the V12, the V10 engine inherit qualities and faults of both. It's a compromise. Like the V8 it is compact and can be load-bearing, and like the V12, it has light moving parts and can rev higher. But apparently the harmonics aren't very good from the exhaust system point of view. Personally, I find the V10 configuration odd; a big of a bastardised engine.
+1 +1 Is that really true? I'm not trying to argue, but suspect "clean slate" designs don't come cheap!..... BS. [Nothing personal! ] Cheers, Ian
In principle, I agree with you... In practice I believe this will lead to even more disparity and greater domination from whichever team happens to get it right...and, much greater costs (for those who did not get it right) to make corrections. As much as we hate to admit it...specifications make for better racing.
Regulate only the maximum displacement, the maximum fuel load, and the minimum weight of the car. Let the engineers go after it.
In theory, but that hasn't worked out over the past couple of seasons, and I tend to doubt that much will change next year.
I have no proof, of course, but I do have some (admittedly second hand) knowledge of simulation and how much it can cost. I really believe there is no material disparity in cost between simulated testing and development and "live" testing and development to achieve essentially the same result. I'm sure there's someone here who has the academic or professional qualifications to confirm or refute that. In addition, live testing offers an opportunity for more human input from more parties than pure simulation. Besides, it's a lot of fun for us to read about test sessions at circuits around the world rather than a couple of engineers in a lab somewhere in the Midlands.
Outstanding plan but too straightforward for the rule makers. I guess they think making things difficult makes them look clever.
"Speed is just a question of money - How fast do you want to go?" The big teams spending on the best engineers and on non-stop car development would completely destroy the small teams. Sauber/Lotus/Manor etc., are already struggling with budgets so how would they keep up with the likes of Mercedes and Ferrari?
When have they ever kept up? They aren't in F1 with plans to win, they are in F1 for exposure, it can't be for anything else. The mid rung teams have never had a chance. If they brought back proper engines and lost all the Eco-rubbish, the engines would be cheaper, allowing the smaller teams to survive easier, and testing would be voluntary
But trying different designs and then maximizing the better one is even more expensive. I think that the biggest problem we have right now are not the tight regulations but the token system and the testing limitations. If you don´t get it right from the beginning you´re f*** up for the rest of the season.
On this one you're right. The current cost of the technology, hardware, software and specific engineers needed to run the computing and simulation software alone is astronomical. I can understand how people could make the mistake in the comparison, but the fact is a day at the track is actually relatively cheap, even if you don't have your own circuit. You can also generate revenue from a live test day - sponsors and media will pay and provide coverage (and therefore more advertising for sponsors) at a live test day. There's nothing to "cover" or "sell" when a computer runs its petaflop sims or models. The biggest costs of the track testing was in the dedicated teams of test engineers. If you really wanted to, you could simply limit the engineers at test days to be the same as those at track at events.
