The issue is the hybrids. Even Merc has had issues with the regen lugging of the rear wheels. What this season has shown is that the "braking" from the ERS is simply not consistent or predictable enough for a performance vehicle. A car is a machine designed to go, stop, and turn. It has to do all of those things with precision. The ERS is a band-aid for the perception of "greenness" which has nothing to do with performance. If they want a "green" series, then impose an emissions test on the car at some RPM, then step back and let the engineers do their job. The hybrid mills is making the same mistake that government bureaucrats make: trying to dictate half-baked solutions, instead of goals. Bureaucrats are not engineers. The Skunk Works was textbook "goal oriented" engineering: "Pick the right man for the job, and get everyone else out of his way." Let the engineers figure out how to make the car "green" -- and still quick. We've spent 100 years cleaning up internal combustion. Don't have bureaucrats making silly assumptions. Besides: FIA now has "Formula E" for being "politically correct". Leave F1 to be "correct".
Enough of the fantasies - F1 has gone from V12's to V10's to V8's to now V6's Doe anybody see a trend ? Obviously they are not going to reverse themselves. MB are not going to vote for a rule change in 2015 Why would they when they are miles ahead.Plus silly little man Horner is threatening MB with a spending war in 2016 if they don't agree to changes in 2015.What nonsense from RB ?
For the sake of good sound and less costly power plants. 3L v12 with metal valve springs and a rev limit of 14,000,intake restricted and or fuel flow restricted. That is what an F1 engine should sound like. As far as a good sounding V8.Make mine A nascar 355 which of course sounds wimpy compared to the old can am 494's . They made the ground shake. GTS Bruce
They have before. They had 1.5L turbos running against 3L NAs in the past. Bernie got BMW 4 cyl turbos for Brabham in '82. Then they went back to V12s. Change is the only constant. The big problem with F1 was the pretense, under Mad Max, that change would stop. The new teams were added under the promise of a "cost limited" static spec series. That didn't happen, and the teams that expected limited development costs can't keep up.
Yes, this is why I don't like outside parameters like fuel comsumption or tyre wear to be manipulated to "spice" racing. Just go racing!! Also, I don't like drivers being coached from the pits; let's them devise their own strategy and not an army on analysts rivited to their laptops in the pits!
I'm sure money could be saved without damaging the races if teams were no longer allowed an army of data crunchers, race managers and strategists back at their factories during a race weekend too.
I guess it depends on how much of a team sport you want F1 to be. The fuel, tire and other artifices have no place in sport. They keep trying to tweak the sport to make it better and fail every time.
You are absolutely right. A lot of team budget goes to pay these boffins playing strategists during the GP weekends. That brings nothing to racing, and it should be banned.
I see what you mean, but in practical terms I believe that fuel flow and fuel quantity would end up having the same effect, as no one would want to carry extra weight. Either way, I believe a restriction on consumption would push the engineers to find ways to go fast with more efficient engines and lighter cars, which in the end would benefit everyone, as the technology would trickle to the cars we buy. Dictating the number of cylinders, the RPM or other parameters is limiting the technology and that is not serving anyone. Just my opinion.
You are absolutely right, but I said that because MB has a tendency to brag about their technology and engineering prowesse, only to fall flat on its face, every now and then. The embarassing roll over of the A series in the rein deer avoidance maneuver, the 2 Le Mans cars that went airborne are the first 2 that come to mind.
A bunch of losers? Who, do you mean F1 fans? I agree, people who follow the sport are the losers in all of this. The cars are a bloody bore. This formula succeeds only in alienating the core fan base, no one gives half a sh*t.
Gilles gave the formula to good racing many years ago...something like a Mclaren m-23, big fat tyres and lot's of power!!!! It´s as simple as that, the more complicated the cars get, the worst races will be. Nobody cares if it´s turbo, non turbo, just trow away all those stupid butons and gadgets, a simple steering wheel and a couple of pedals, that´s ity...no crap like DRS or (CRAP)ERS or other ****....simple car, lots of power and the best drivers, no fuel restrictions, decent grip and lasting tyres, and let them race...
Actually, I think you're both a little wrong here!.... I certainly bow to Furoni's knowledge, particularly when it comes to Gilles, but as I recall he was responding to the age old "there's no overtaking in F1, how do we fix it?" question. (Sound familiar? ) anyway; Gilles; "the problem is the braking distances are too short. Most overtaking is done under braking, and that's no longer possible. Same power etc, but let's put them on "skinny" F3 tires. Increased braking distance, hence more overtaking....." But I could be wrong..... Cheers, Ian
