Sign in
Forgot your password?
or Sign up
News

Engine size for F1

Discussion in 'F1' started by PSk, Nov 16, 2003.

  1. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    #1 PSk, Nov 16, 2003
    Okay I read somewhere that some engineers are quite rightly saying it is time to reduce engine size as the best way to slow the cars down.

    I personally think this is about time, as this will change the game and make it technically interesting again ... ie. This would require the engineers to think a bit and maybe we would see some interesting stuff result.

    Ferrari has said it would be very happy to cut 2 cylinders off their engine, ending up with something like 2.4 ltrs and a v8. Apparently Ferrari stated there is resistence to this from other engine makers as they have marketed the v10 for road cars.

    My question is who has marketed a v10. The only cars I know with v10s are Lambo and the Viper.

    Anyway who gives, they can start again and make a smaller v10.

    This is another example where the rules are toooooooo tight and money/marketing is getting in the way of REAL racing.

    Pete
     
  2. ralessi

    ralessi Formula 3

    May 26, 2002
    1,093
    Houston, TX
    Full Name:
    Rikk
    #2 ralessi, Nov 16, 2003
    I believe the new BMW M5 is supposed to have a version of the F1 engines? And also possibly the new Mclaren's that are supposedly being produced?
     
  3. Gary(SF)

    Gary(SF) F1 Rookie

    Oct 13, 2003
    3,637
    Los Altos Hills, CA
    Full Name:
    Gary B.
    #3 Gary(SF), Nov 16, 2003
    The new M5 and the Carrera GT both have V10's.
     
  4. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    #4 PSk, Nov 16, 2003
    Porsche don't race in F1 or even supply engines!

    Anyway, all the manufacturers mentioned ALSO make other engine configurations. Why stop technology just because of this cr*p.

    Won't be long and I will have to give F1 away ...

    Pete
     
  5. beast

    beast F1 Veteran

    May 31, 2003
    8,965
    Lewisville, TX
    Full Name:
    Rob Guess
    #5 beast, Nov 17, 2003
    I say instead of reducing engine size, placing a rev limiter on them, Or air inlet restiction. They should reduce rear tire width or limit the size and types of down force producing devices.

    This way it puts it back into the drivers hands. Also think of what good 900Hp would be if the end result would be the tires getting burnt off of the car after 3 laps. also put a limit to the maximum spring rate so that the cars do move on bumps intead of being stiff like they are now.

    I am suprised that F1 has not tried anything like the "Hanford" device that CART used on the superspeedways for a while. It seemed as if the cars were all running with a parachute behind them and there was lots of passes all around the track.

    Another thing that could be done is have the minimum weight of the car increased and put into the rules that ballest weight must be mounted up high. This way the engineers have a reason to produce heavy transmissions, engines and tubs instead of the lightest possible that they do now.

    If F1 is to be a driver and engineer challenge make it challenging to them by reinventing the wheel every 2-3 years and not releasing the new rules until after the last race of the season. that way everyone starts with a clean sheet of paper

    Just a few of my suggestions

    Rob Guess "The Other Rob"
     
  6. Prova7

    Prova7 Formula Junior

    Nov 17, 2003
    254
    Dallas, TX
    Full Name:
    DamonB
    #6 Prova7, Nov 17, 2003
    I know F1 is not NASCAR racing (I hate NASCAR with a passion) but watch any restrictor plate race and you'll realize driving talent won't take you to the front when engines are artificially restricted.
     
  7. beast

    beast F1 Veteran

    May 31, 2003
    8,965
    Lewisville, TX
    Full Name:
    Rob Guess
    #7 beast, Nov 17, 2003
    If you take a look i was saying instead of restricting the engine,why not make it more difficult to get all of that power to the ground.

    Nascar racing is about as exciting as watching the grass grow in my backyard.

    If we make F1 to where the tires are spinning and the cars are sliding around it would be one hell of a show.

    Rob Guess "The Other Rob"
     
  8. Gilles27

    Gilles27 F1 World Champ

    Mar 16, 2002
    13,337
    Ex-Urbia
    Full Name:
    Jack
    #8 Gilles27, Nov 17, 2003
    If you sit back and look at this issue objectively, you begin to see how ridiculous it starts to look. F1 is supposed to be the ultimate series in regards to racing technology, and the FIA/BernieCo enjoy throwing that sentiment at us whenever it's a convenient crutch on which to support a decision of theirs. The regulations are so tight the teams spend un-godly amounts of money finding 1/100s of a second improvement. Then the FIA tries to slow the cars down, be it through already-done measures like grooved tires and narrower cars or proposals such as restricted or smaller engines. All this while, all over the world, tracks are being built or re-built in the name of hosting Grands Prix. They basically have two choices: the first is to stay the course, and run what will amount to FormulaNascar, with homogeneous cars that are restricted in various ways. The second is to actually design tracks that are on par with the performance of today's cars. In the latest issue of F1Racing, they have a sketch of the new circuit in Turkey, slated for '05. Once they put in all the grandstands, paddock and VIP amenities, it appears they were able to throw down some asphalt in the remaining space to serve as the track.

    I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it. Bernie Ecclestone has done wonderful things for Formula One, but he has gone overboard in his relentless pursuit to generate revenue. With motives that are fiscally driven, the heart and passion of the sport get elbowed out of the picture. It's happened in most sports, and F1 is following the same path.
     
  9. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    #9 PSk, Nov 17, 2003
    Never a truer word said.

    The thing that really annoys me is that F1 had its most competitive period during the early 60's (ie. most number of WC's, different winners, etc.) and that was when they had the little 1.5 ltr cars.

    Small engines does not mean slack racing, it means slower top speeds and thus MORE opportunity to pass.

    Small engines in F1 would mean less wing to get better speeds, and thus less down force and thus MORE passing.

    Also F1 is big enough to stand and survive with smaller engines just as it did in the early 60's ... infact the sport took off then with the rear/mid engine car serious introduction and the chassis becoming as important as the engine.


    As for tracks. Whoever let Melbourne (for example) get built was attempting to destroy racing, as all those fast sweepers means that nobody can or wants to try and pass.

    Also nothing is worse to watch than a car go through yet another chicane ... the worst solution. Let them race, they are racing drivers prepared to put their life on the line ... just make sure ALL tracks have a decent hairpin with a slow exit so they can try and pass without loosing on the corner exit. That is all you need!

    Pete
     
  10. ferrari_kid

    ferrari_kid Formula Junior

    Jul 5, 2003
    768
    #10 ferrari_kid, Nov 21, 2003
    i completely agree that F1 can't keep neutering these cars. if you build a car with this type of performance in mind the car and the track should be able to handle a crash of that magnitude. these cars are supposed to be packed with the latest and greatest toys available to us now. they were bragging about how the royal army came to F1 to learn a few things about refueling their helos. they say that the only other people with the type of wind tunnel technology as these F1 teams is the US government and they use it to test their latest top secret planes. i'm all down for more competative racing, but there needs to be another solution.
     

Share This Page