Did you see the words "production based"? Think WRC engines, but with bigger holes in the air restrictors.
Did you see the words "production based"? Think WRC engines, but with bigger holes in the air restrictors.
Did anyone mention that it's McLaren making the ECU's for next season?
Hah, if it weren't for those silly FIA regulations, F1 teams would have ditched the drivers long ago. Computers can drive faster, more reliably, and they don't ask for multi-million dollar wages.
F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsport: top engineering AND top programming, dammit!
F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsport: top engineering AND top programming, dammit!
Production based 1.5 litre turbo engine put out over 1000hp in qualifying and that was at 80's, imagine what they can do now with 2 litre engine?
I don't think they were production based.
By "production based" I meant WRC engines with bigger holes in the air restrictor.
Engine block was same as in road car, that is then production based, imo.
As WRC engines, there is almost as much same in those engines, not even close to engines you have in road car, well block is same
they should just dump all regulations other than no body parts in a radius of 30cm around the wheels or something else so ensure the car stay open wheelers ... its the only way to make f1 the top series again
End of the day, it's the structural integrity of the block that ultimately limits the power of an engine.
BTW, those 1200hp 1.5L turbo engines used massive absolute boost (as high as 5 bar!) and were V-6, built from exotic materials (not the conventional aluminium alloy or iron blocks used in WRC cars).
The most powerful of them all was the BMW which used a production inline 4 block, supposedly they started life as used production blocks, in reality I'm pretty sure they were highly modified blocks using better materials, but nothing that a WRC car won't have had done to it.
Yeah, those Italians at the FIA are terrible
Seriously though, F1 has been a snorefest for many a year, I don't think a lack of TC will make a huge difference in that ... though I bet when they run in the wet you'll see some funny spins
All those in favour say aye....
"AYE!!"
Also Russians did made copies of those engines to Elite by license and that block is really strong too.
Sub 10 second car with 2 turbo ... bar boost original block
so ? its called racing and ffs sake they get paid a few million bucks for sitting in a car enjoying themself once a forthnight ... there are racers doing much much more dangerous stuff (airplane pylon races for example) for much less because they enjoy it
f1 should be about pushing the envelope of physics not the one of a 1000 page book of regulations
and thats just an utter load of rubbish:
Special tracks would have to be built to accommodate the cars. These tracks would have to have the relatively simple design and layout of modern tracks, with only 12-16 corners, but with the immense length of the great tracks of the past to allow the cars to reach their potential in terms of cornering speeds.
That would be great, in Nascar the cars overtake each other ... on the track, and more than once in a race! Okay, I'm not into the new COT Nascars, but still, its better
Surely the pinacle of motorsport should be pitting men and machines against each other - most technology appears to remove the driver from the act of driving to a greater or lesser degree; put a current F1 driver into a pre-aero F1 car (on crossplies!) and see how much talent they have ...
The renault turbo was actually iron block, the bmw turbo was aluminium block. nothing fancy there actually.
F1 has never been about making just the stupidest fastest cars possible. It's always been about doing that WITHIN the regulations. In the past there were fewer regulations because there were simply fewer things that were possible.
First and foremost, it's motor RACING. You might have forgotten that, seeing as we've had so little for the past few years. The regulations mean the cars are designed just to be able to go quickly, with pretty much the only passing happening in the pits. There's far too much dependency on aerodynamic grip.
Ditch the aids, ditch the grooves, widen the cars and drop some aero. Not because it "takes skill away", but because it's what the racing needs. Everyone saying technology has ruined he sport, do you want to go back to synchro-less gearboxes, cross-ply tyres and drum brakes?
First and foremost, it's motor RACING. You might have forgotten that, seeing as we've had so little for the past few years. The regulations mean the cars are designed just to be able to go quickly, with pretty much the only passing happening in the pits. There's far too much dependency on aerodynamic grip.
Ditch the aids, ditch the grooves, widen the cars and drop some aero. Not because it "takes skill away", but because it's what the racing needs. Everyone saying technology has ruined he sport, do you want to go back to synchro-less gearboxes, cross-ply tyres and drum brakes?
Hmm, M10 is cast iron block and that is where M13 was made that is F1 turbo version of engine, do you have any reference where this information of M13 being alloy block comes from?
Current F1 cars don't have sycnros.
Crossplies in many ways made the driving easier and more forgiving (see Gilles' car control, which wouldn't be nearly as apparent on radials), and would drop speeds a bit (until tyre manufacturers spent the money on them that they have on radials).
Drum brakes - nothing technically wrong with drum brakes - can still stop a car very very well. The downside is unsprung weight and overall size. Cable operated drums might be a different matter, but that's the fault of the cable rather than the drum.
Yes F1 is motor RACING. And yes it is (and should be) the pinnacle of motorsport. But allowing technology to come in to the extent that it reduces the show, the racing and the skill is counter-productive. As the pinnacle it doesn't NEED the most technology - it should be the fastest and hardest motorsport. Give F3 cars driver aids, and as they progress up the ranks (and relative skill levels) then reduce the aids, increase the power and the grip, and watch in awe.
Already I find watching an F1 car on the limit an amazing spectacle. With granny aids removed it'll be even better, even if the number of passes going on remains the same.
Suggesting that NASCAR is even a vaguely close match is laughable - second rate technology, second rate cars, second rate drivers and tedious ovals do not, in my book, a great series make.
I strongly disagree. There is no other justification for motorsports other than technology.
If it wasn't for the technological point of motorsports I'd immediately support closing down all race tracks.
(That's why I'd support the end of NASCAR.)
Vain
If it wasn't for the technological point of motorsports I'd immediately support closing down all race tracks.
(That's why I'd support the end of NASCAR.)
Vain
+1 racing series and especially f1 always should be an engineering playground for the worlds best vehicle, aero and nowerdays automation engineers to toy around with tomorrows technology and not about whos lawyer can find the biggest hole in the regulations for the aforementioned engineers to exploit
Did anyone suggest that? Someone mentioned that they now do extensive wind tunnel testing, but thats about it. At least they can overtake each other, when was the last time an F1 race had cars side-by-side on the last lap, or a photo finish?
As for saying the cars are 2nd rate, you should see what going into making a V8 rev to 9000rpm for 500 miles, it may not involve microchips, but there's sound engineering going into increasing the longevity and charactersitics of the engines.
Vain - If there's no justification for racing besides technology, why bother? War improves technology far better than racing. The less technology in a racecar, the better the racing gets; do you really not want to watch historic race/rally/dragsters? Do you not enjoy the sights, sounds and smells of a piece of machinery that was driven to its limits over 30 or 50 years ago? If not I really feel sorry for you, because thats missing out on the best part of racing there is.
Moving with the times is one thing, but if its the only thing (as seems to be with F1) I have no passion for it.
Really? Why on earth would you want that? What harm do the one make series' do, or the (vast majority of) series' which do not develop the car in any way and so have no input in technological advances?
There doesn't need to be any justification for it. You could claim it's not environmentally friendly, but that's it, and tbh it's a miniscule drop in the ocean when it comes to carbon emissions.
I agree totally on the technology and cars, but the driving is specialised and ovals are a matter of taste.
All I need is an engine roaring on a car on a track and it is a motorsports I like. I don't care if the cars have some magnificent automatic downforce systems or multi-fantastic-automatic suspension systems or ultra-fast plastic-alloy racing wheels. All I'm interested to see how the drivers put the cars on the limit, and make the car go really fast. Imho, F1 without TC offers better show.
I am interested about the tech side but it is much interesting to read about it than to see how boring it can make the "racing".
I am interested about the tech side but it is much interesting to read about it than to see how boring it can make the "racing".
(F1) Traction Control Banned for 2008
(116 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG