Well Ferrari have had experiences with British drivers, and they've all been good ones. Mike Parkes, John Surtees, Eddie Irvine, Nigel Mansell and a few more in F1 but even in GT racing with Dekka Bell, they had good Anglo-Italo relationships.

Single DRS detection point to remain
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92476

For **** sakes the single drs detection with two drs section is the most stupid thing ever. Why can't they add 2nd detection point? I understand in canada it was difficult to set up another drs detection point but in valencia it looks pretty easy to do...

I think the basic rule they should follow is:
* If the track has two long straights (ie. the pit straight and a back straight), two DRS zones with one detection point for each.
* If the track has only one long straight, one DRS zone and detection point.

Valencia is going to be the complete opposite of what it was in previous seasons lol.

Quote :

F1 bosses agree to compromise on new engine regs - delay by one year to 2014, six-cylinder turbos rather than four. hybrid etc stays

https://twitter.com/#!/andrewb ... /status/83534310187081730

HELL YES!!

Slightly less shit than road car engines originally planned.

I think 8 should be the MINIMUM number of cylinders (no maximum). If F1 wants to save fuel to keep the blind treehuggers happy, then send one less cargo plane to each flyaway race. Just one. And it won't ruin the racing spectacle.

Why not let the constructors decide on engine configuration? It'd be interesting to see a variety of set ups with varied benefits in terms of aerodynamic packaging, weight distribution or power, vibration and heat characteristics et cetera. I see nothing wrong with teams adopting an inline four design, centre of gravity might be slightly higher and a single turbo would make for a slightly less driver friendly engine, but think of the aerodynamic benefits of such a narrow engine, particularly if the underfloor aerodynamic regulations that were proposed at one point were to be adopted too.

What's the point in just reducing the cylinders? If you want to be economic use electric engines. We have the technology to produce a powerful electric engine that will last long enough for us to race with it.

Just discard the ''no refueling'' rule and allow teams to change the ''batteries'' of their cars. We'll have more interesting pit stops, more advanced technology and the technology developed in F1 will be useful in building road cars. With electric engines F1 will be the pinnacle of technology and economic racing it is supposed to be.

Or we can just use smaller engines and ban every clever thing Red Bull comes up with to improve aerodynamics and let F1 slowly die.

If we want to be economic, the last thing we ought to do is promote electric cars.

Solar power.

Quote from tristancliffe :

If we want to be economic, the last thing we ought to do is promote electric cars.

Agreed

I think alcubierre drives would be interesting engine choise for F1.

Rotarys or Deltic only...

Quote from NSX_FReeDoM :

https://twitter.com/#!/andrewb ... /status/83534310187081730

HELL YES!!

Full story: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92513

I don't get why Mercedes and Cosworth started saying "nay" only after it was originally decided. Well, good that they did since the extra cylinders help a lot with the sound.

Probably because Renault wants "road relevance" even though it won't be. Mercedes and Cosworth presumably want the show as that's what keeps the punters happy. No F1 fan cares if the F1 cars are road relevant. They haven't been as yet, so I don't see why they should start trying.

Road relevance will only start when they have 110hp, airbags, central locking and a touchscreen 'entertainment centre'. And I don't think manufacturers need much help making them as they are, and ABS, Traction Control, Stability Control, Power Steering, Fuel Economy et al are all doing just fine (if not better) without F1 anyway (because F1 keeps the costs high, whereas road car production is about making it ultra reliable (not 200 mile reliable), cheap and user (or mechanic) friendly. F1 cannot and will never help in those regards.

Sure, some things filter down that have been used in F1. But stuff filters down from the Space Shuttle program and crazy stuff like that, but I don't hear NASA asking for more road car relevance to help their projects.

Quote :

The move comes after opposition to the early switch to 1.6-litre turbo engines fitted with extensive hybrid technology from the current 2.4-litre V8s.
As part of the compromise, the new engine formula will be for six-cylinder engines rather than the four-cylinder units that were originally agreed.
That is a sop to Ferrari, who objected to the restriction to four cylinders.

Yes because Ferrari have a large range of straight-6 engined cars.......

EDIT: Ah wait they're V6s.

Quote from J@tko :

Yes because Ferrari have a large range of straight-6 engined cars.......

EDIT: Ah wait they're V6s.

Ferrari haven't often made a V6 so what's your point? Also, the formation of the 6 cylinder hasn't been specified. Flat, straight, V are all on the cards if that's the case.

Well, straight isn't really an option because of it's length and V offers better rigidity than flat as a load bearing structure.

I'm still smiling a bit though. First we went from 3litre V10s to 2.4litre V8s. Lose 2 cylinders and 2 cylinders worth of displacement. Then let's lose 2 more cylinders and 2 cylinders worth displacement (well almost). I can imagine bernie and the renault and ferrari bigshots looking at scale model of a v8 engine at the fia head quarters and there comes jean todt in with a hacksaw in his hand...

Going by this rate the next engine maker in F1 will be harley davidson. And it still isn't road car relevant.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Ferrari haven't often made a V6 so what's your point? Also, the formation of the 6 cylinder hasn't been specified. Flat, straight, V are all on the cards if that's the case.

BBC Sport say they have to be V6s.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/13878359.stm

Quote :

This new rule, which requires engines to be in a V6 configuration, is a compromise that takes each party's view into account.

And yes my point still stands, although a V6 is marginally more relevant to them than a straight-6!

Quote from J@tko :

BBC Sport say they have to be V6s.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/13878359.stm

Shame why not leave the configuration open? They may aswell, most of them will use V6's anyway but at least they can show some form of interest in different engine design...

Quote from BlueFlame :

Shame why not leave the configuration open? They may aswell, most of them will use V6's anyway but at least they can show some form of interest in different engine design...

Once again it will be to "cut costs". Seems a shame that a spec series is cheapest......

They've now mandated engine angle, weight distribution, cylinders and config, and they're even in "lets make all the engines equal" mode. No, what we want is a point where one engine has uber power and another has uber traction, that's where we get good racing. [as an example]

As I said earlier, it seems that the new regs will just stifle innovation. That is something that does filter down to us plebs at the end of the day. Yes they are only designed for a 200 odd mile lifetime, but designing to close tolerances does give tangible data for real world application. Why the regulations have to enforce the configuration is beyond me.

I want to see V6 Stirling Engines in F1!

I have said it before and I have seen others say similar but why not limit somethings but leave others free. In terms of engines why not limit each car to a maximum fuel tank size, say of 100 litres with no refueling in the race but each team can run whatever engine they want. If they want to make it green, after a few years lower to 90 litres, 80 litres etc. etc. Let them run inline engines, V's, n/a's, turbo/super chargers ....

Quote from Greboth :

I have said it before and I have seen others say similar but why not limit somethings but leave others free. In terms of engines why not limit each car to a maximum fuel tank size, say of 100 litres with no refueling in the race but each team can run whatever engine they want. If they want to make it green, after a few years lower to 90 litres, 80 litres etc. etc. Let them run inline engines, V's, n/a's, turbo/super chargers ....

Reinvent Group C concept by replacing fuel limits with total energy limits.

Red Bull have confirmed they will be running Silverstone mapping at Valencia this morning. Vettel currently way down the timing screen, but that may be down to high fuel/other tests. It's interesting that Vettle might be the one who will end up most disadvantaged by the ban on blown diffusers.