Turbos and ground effects back for 2013? (Topic Merged)
Posted by senninho
Personally, I don't see how a small four-pot engine with multi-stage turbo and supercharging, not to mention energy recover devices, is any less of a technological challenge than a big v10 with a decade of development behind it.
F1 isn't going backwards; it's looking at the car industry that it has previously inspired - how can it do that - or even think about considering itself a 'pinnacle' of anything - when at least two engine manufacturers (who have very recently pulled out) have far more advanced engines in their road cars?
F1 isn't going backwards; it's looking at the car industry that it has previously inspired - how can it do that - or even think about considering itself a 'pinnacle' of anything - when at least two engine manufacturers (who have very recently pulled out) have far more advanced engines in their road cars?
gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
> See, this is the narrow-minded modern fan
> approach. The F1 you remember is V10s. Before that
> everyone loved the V12 in the Ferrari. Before that
> it was the monster 1200hp+ turbos (which were
> actually 0.1 litre less than this proposal) of the
> 80s. Before that we had the epic Ford DFV and
> Ferrari and a few others trying to battle it with
> V12s. BRM had an H16. BRM had a V16. The engines
> of the 50s ranged from huge capacity to huger
> capacity.
>
> So imagine what less narrow-minded people have had
> to go through before they got the cannibalisation
> of the V10s and now V8s. If you think that's bad
> then you can't preach history and tradition when
> you've no appreciation for it yourself.
It's also worth noting that said monster turbo engines were I4 or V6 things, and many were directly related to road cars. BMW's turbo engine (which, IIRC, broke their factory dyno at 1,300bhp) was based on a road car engine that was introduced in the '60s.
If you're an aspiring engineer, and want to work in F1, you definitely shouldn't ignore the past, or complain about what will be there in the future.
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
> See, this is the narrow-minded modern fan
> approach. The F1 you remember is V10s. Before that
> everyone loved the V12 in the Ferrari. Before that
> it was the monster 1200hp+ turbos (which were
> actually 0.1 litre less than this proposal) of the
> 80s. Before that we had the epic Ford DFV and
> Ferrari and a few others trying to battle it with
> V12s. BRM had an H16. BRM had a V16. The engines
> of the 50s ranged from huge capacity to huger
> capacity.
>
> So imagine what less narrow-minded people have had
> to go through before they got the cannibalisation
> of the V10s and now V8s. If you think that's bad
> then you can't preach history and tradition when
> you've no appreciation for it yourself.
It's also worth noting that said monster turbo engines were I4 or V6 things, and many were directly related to road cars. BMW's turbo engine (which, IIRC, broke their factory dyno at 1,300bhp) was based on a road car engine that was introduced in the '60s.
If you're an aspiring engineer, and want to work in F1, you definitely shouldn't ignore the past, or complain about what will be there in the future.
im not sure about f1 but i know that one of the reasons why group a failed in touring cars was that the skyrocketing price to maintain and run turbo engines.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
slicer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After several weeks thinking about the subject, I
> have realized my errors. But I do have several
> questions regarding this change (If it ever does
> happen).
>
> First off will this overrule the current rules
> (wings, no bodywork)? I could not imagine trying
> to create a ground effects oriented car with a big
> ol wing in the back creating drag. If it does how
> far do you guys think the FIA will let the teams
> run with it? Will they require some sort of wing
> in front and back, dimensioned or not? I know it
> is a bit early to talk about it as the powers that
> be haven't even decided if they are going with it
> or not. But it's good to speculate and wonder.
>
> I've been making sketches in class of what these
> cars may look like. I'll post the sketches here
> soon.
>
> -The Slicerer
> The Future Engineer Now In His Right Mind
I would imagine the new rules will substantially replace the old ones. For a cue to how these cars would look, check out what was being raced in '81-'82 - front wings were virtually redundant, but you would still need a rear wing to keep the rear wheels in check.
-------------------------------------------------------
> After several weeks thinking about the subject, I
> have realized my errors. But I do have several
> questions regarding this change (If it ever does
> happen).
>
> First off will this overrule the current rules
> (wings, no bodywork)? I could not imagine trying
> to create a ground effects oriented car with a big
> ol wing in the back creating drag. If it does how
> far do you guys think the FIA will let the teams
> run with it? Will they require some sort of wing
> in front and back, dimensioned or not? I know it
> is a bit early to talk about it as the powers that
> be haven't even decided if they are going with it
> or not. But it's good to speculate and wonder.
>
> I've been making sketches in class of what these
> cars may look like. I'll post the sketches here
> soon.
>
> -The Slicerer
> The Future Engineer Now In His Right Mind
I would imagine the new rules will substantially replace the old ones. For a cue to how these cars would look, check out what was being raced in '81-'82 - front wings were virtually redundant, but you would still need a rear wing to keep the rear wheels in check.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.