Ecclestone to propose V10 comeback

I don't find the turbo aspect that interesting.

IMO a 2.5 v10/12, direct injection, camless and ERS is just as advanced as the current engine formula, just with more noise and what 99% of the sane fans want.

 

Just the ticket.
like the 2004 engines, probably run a few seconds per lap faster than the current cars, and drivers won't get electric shocks if they donk the barriers. Safe, fast AND green

 

The engine formula is not the reason for current cars being slower than 2004. It is the aero, fuel, tyres etc…

The engine debate is all about emotion (from noise), cost and the obvious disparity in performance between the Merc engine and everybody else's. If all the field were running Merc PUs, I don't think this debate would be half as heated as it is. No body wants to see a spec engine series, so we need to find another, more cost effective way of moving forward which is still high tech, but doesn't require all the manufacturers to go back to the drawing board. Equally, dusting off 'old tech' engines is completely anti F1s philosophy - and that of Ferrari. We need to make progress towards the future, not dwell on the past.

 

Your formula is pretty close to what they did in 2009...which was more or less sticking a small ERS unit onto old internal combustion technology. Not anywhere close to being as advanced as today's engine formula.

Virtually every automobile/truck manufacturer is heading towards turbos. VW announced a few years ago that all new engine groups will be forced induction. Turbos add efficiency to the combustion process and they offer an efficient way of harvesting and seeding additional energy from/into the drive train.

 

I disagree. The problem with the new formula is that the costs and complexity demanded mean that only the big automakers can produce engines. A formula based on displacement, fuel consumption and/or fuel flow would allow the teams to adopt whatever tech is fastest. Beit conventional or hybrid.

 

Biofuels are NOT good for our planet. They cause existing forests to be felled so the "right" plants can be grown. Read up on Indonesia for example ... and talk to your partners about palm oil ... should be completely illegal!

Sorry biofuels is another con so somebody can make $'s and fnck this planet. Sure if done right waste can be converted to fuel, but we know that will never happen when the mightly $ is involved.
Pete

 

One other thing that we are ignoring and is an area where F1 can help is:

Developing strategies to deal with road accidents with these modern power units.

When a hybrid car is involved in a road accident there is an enormous amount of voltage accessible through wires hidden within the car panels. Our fire brigade members need to learn how to deal with this because cutting in the wrong area could result in another death.

F1 can help here by developing strategies or design directions, ie. all such wiring needs to be located in the same place on all cars and in a certain area, etc.
Pete

 

Since when is that F1's brief?

 

I agree with you disagreeing
The "formula" needs to be greatly simplified as per Vizla's proposal. Maybe even simpler. Leave as many paths as possible open and give scope for creativity to be the differentiator rather than $.
On the dusting off old tech, well, turbo's were a thing of the 80's and, as I mentioned in a previous post, battery "technology" is thousands of years old.

 

There are biofuels and biofuels. Don't confuse your example from Indonesia with the true potential of this energy source.
In fact, biofuels are the only energy source offering the potential of a negative carbon emission cycle. At the same time, it can produce all the energy we need without taking one square inch of arable farming land or forest. Biofuels don't need to use any existing food crops. Add to this the fact that they are possibly the most efficient solar energy converter that is completely organic and that the process intakes dirty water and produces clean water and you have an energy source that we should be investing in - not decrying.

Compare all that with the long term environmental disaster that hybrid is wreaking on our planet.

Also, all this "greenness" has nothing to do with F1 and nor should it IMO

 

Yes but they will produce the fuels the cheapest possible way without any regard to the environment.
Pete

 

Let's face it, all the ingredients that made motor racing so exiting since the birth of the automobile (noise, diversity, danger, smell, recklessness, etc...) are slowly disappearing this century in an increasingly over-regulated world.

 

Fair enough, we want business to be ethical, but this seems more a comment on your view of corporations than being related to biofuels.

 

Agree that I don't trust corporations, but lets face it the production of biofuels will be the cheapest way possible not the best way for the planet. So I think it is fair to say that the current biofuels that you can buy are NOT environmentally friendly or good for our forests and the planet.

Yes if they did move to your methods that would be different, but I reckon they never will unless their are huge profits involved. Such a sad reality of stupid humanbeings
Pete

 

Which is why we should fight to keep them in racing.

 

That is because the automobile development days are numbered. Motorracing was original created to aid the development of the automobile, I guess it is not strange that now we have mastered the automobile motorracing is suffering and has become contrived.

But if F1 sticks with these hightech solutions at least there is some interest. If it goes back to just IC engines, sorry ... rather watch historic racing.
Pete

 

All I did was remove the turbo from the current program. I increased engine size and added camless.

FIAWEC is a far better platform for manufacturers for car development.

 

The trouble is that the FIA imposes too many technical solutions, and therefore denies F1 its role of being at the vanguard of automotive science.

When the rules dictate the engine configuration, size, bore, stroke, fuel, revs, energy recovery systems, boost and other parameters, there is not much left to the designers for innovation and experimentation. Add to that a ban on testing and evolution, and you end up with a dull series.- for me anyhow.

There is a sharp contrast, in that sense, between the over-regulated approach on F1 and the relative technical freedom still allowed in LMP1 (WEC).

I very much enjoy watching the different solutions adopted by AUDI, Toyota, Porsche and Nissan in WEC, with none of them copying form its rivals. Unlike the FIA, the ACO that wrote these rules has to be commanded for keeping that category interesting.

 

Completely agree
Pete

 

If Mercedes were at the exact same performance level as Williams and Ferrari right now rather than having their massive advantage, and Sauber, Red Bull (and McLaren),were up there too, how dull would the racing be?

The races are mainly dull because the Mercedes, for the second year running, are just going to walk away with the Championship!

But how have Mercedes achieved this advantage?

The exact same way as Red Bull used to, by using supreme engineering and interpretations of the rules!

Mercedes have used an innovative layout for its power-plant that works incredibly well, which the rest haven't, and they've designed a superb chassis.

You say that the designers are being stifled by the regulations to be innovative, but I see it as they are being forced to work harder and be even cleverer still to find the advantages within the rules.


As for WEC, do they not use a system of artificially handicapping cars if they're found to have too much of an advantage in races, such as fuel flow restrictors and limits on pit stops for diesel cars in order to try and keep everyone on an even playing field and make the racing closer?*

If so, how is that any different to what Christian Horner is asking the FIA to do to Mercedes?

(*NOTE: I don't follow WEC at all so I'm not totally au fait with all of the technical regulations)

 

Three rules: open wheels, limit engine displacement, no traction control. Leave the rest to the teams. Maybe a fourth rule limiting wing size, if need be.

Truthfully, bringing back V10s would get me back to the races.

 

With no financial constraints and a lack of restrictions it would become a Championship for whoever has the biggest budget in the end.

As for "Leave the rest to the teams", are you new to F1? - You simply cannot trust any of the teams to be left to their own devices!

One way or another, they will cheat! - every last one of them (including Ferrari!)

History has shown us this to be true!

 

Personally, I find F1 boring because all the cars are built using the same solutions.

I very much prefer watching WEC, where there are at the moment 4 schools of thoughts among the top LMP1.

AUDI, V6 turbo Diesel RWD with KERS applied to the front wheels
Toyota, V8 atmo petrol RWD with KERS to the rear wheels.
Porsche, V4 turbo petrol RWD with KERS to the rear wheels.
NISSAN, V6 turbo petrol FRONT WHEEL DRIVE, with KERS applied to the rear wheels.

Even the aerodynamics are more free in WEC; just have a look at NISSAN with its tunnels running inside the cars! Or NISSAN step-up rear suspension liberating the space for maximum ground effect. Incredible!

 

I cannot see anything wrong with the richest and most clever teams being successful; that reflects the conditions outside motor racing, no?

In any case, this is roughly what happens, in spite of trying to "socialise" F1.

And it you open the rules and allow more freedom, you reduce the cheating too!

I will always be in favour of deregulation rather than a thick rule book empowering the officials at the expense of the participants.

 

Please, bring back the noise, the power, the looks, the mechanics!!!!! Today they are driving computers!! We need more mechanics and less computer software wiz guys! My 2 cents.