F1: 2011 regulations, death of F1?

[tongue_of_colicab]

Max ''dinosaur'' Mosley has found another way to screw up F1 even more. For 2011 he wants to intoduce V6 turbocharged engines that run on biofuel, produce around 770bph and a 9000rpm rev limit and last for 5 races and give all the teams the same aero package.

What the hell got in this guys mind? I can live with the biofuel, Koeningsegg got biofuel engines too and they actually produce more bhp than when you but petrol/gas/bezine (or whatever you call it depending on were you live) in it. But v6 engines? F1 should be the pinnackle of motorsports, those cars shouldnt have 2 cilinders less than your average american car. 9000 rev limit? That will be a real treat on the ciruit, cars will sound like taxi's. Same aero package? we already got A1, IRL and whatever for that.

This is F1, not freaking formula ford. If the FIA is that concernd about the enviroment or car manufactuers getting tech out of motorsports for their road cars they should look at something like the Le mans series. Here we got cars that are actually ment to drive long distances, be reliable and fuel efficient. F1 is all about going around the circuit as fast as you can for around 300km. It shouldnt matter that at the end of the race the car falls to pieces, thats what F1 (used to be) about. Not only do these new rules make the cars even more boring the races will also become alot more boring. If your engine needs to last for 5 races you can bet on it the first 4 races will be very concervative to safe the engine. And there already is a lack of overtaking in F1.

If all these rules will really be intoduced F1 wont be F1 anymore, better call it something like F20 because these cars wont be the fastes even close. You will probably have supercars that are able to go around a track faster than a F1 car.

I want turbocharged V12's back, 1200 - 1400bhp engines is what I want to see. Who cares about the enviroment? its not like 20 cars racing 18 times a year are going to make anything of a differance.

 

[Fruitfrenzy]

Don't forget the "boost" button.

Further mooted proposals include cars to be fitted with traction control, four-wheel drive and a 13-second-per-lap, driver controlled, power-boost function in a bid to aid overtaking.

- http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=39287

It all sounds a bit too "playstation" for my tastes.

 

[suryad]

WTF!?! People still watch F1?!

 

[DJ12]

Back in the day, BMW were getting well over 1000bhp from even smaller 1.6l v6 turbo engines. (there was no v12 turbos as far as I remeber they were limited to v6s back then to give the v12s a chance.)

Having V6 turbo engines would probably make the cars go faster rather than slower.

Cosidering that most normal turbo cars sound far meater than equivielent sized normally aspirated motors I think your comment on the noise is well off base too.

 

[Frank]

...

So, you want the biggest engines, with the most cylinders, fastest turbos, highest RPM, most HP and the best and hardest sound you can get? And you don't want AWD, traction control or anything else that helps the drivers to keep all that on the road?

Do you want them to clone drivers, who crash spectaculary and deadly each race? Or a completely straight and wide racing track, without any corners and ample place to take over? And no racing when the weather is bad? And half the weight of the car being very serious crash protection? They could reach a speed of more than 500 km/h that way!

Radio control might work.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I think a large part of Formula 1 died already when they decided to put those grooves onto the tires. The races this year have been even more boring than when Schumacher ruled. Overtaking is nonexistant today and I can honestly say that it has been very hard to stay awake during the races and that's unusual for me as I have been a big fan of this sport. Now it just sucks.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

WTF!?! People still watch F1?!

uh yeah, after olympics and the worldchampionship soccer its the most watched event on tv.

Back in the day, BMW were getting well over 1000bhp from even smaller 1.6l v6 turbo engines. (there was no v12 turbos as far as I remeber they were limited to v6s back then to give the v12s a chance.)

Having V6 turbo engines would probably make the cars go faster rather than slower.

Cosidering that most normal turbo cars sound far meater than equivielent sized normally aspirated motors I think your comment on the noise is well off base too.

yes, but the FIA will limit the engines so no insane amounts of BHP anymore. Also, even with turbos a 9krpm engine wont sound like a 19k one.

So, you want the biggest engines, with the most cylinders, fastest turbos, highest RPM, most HP and the best and hardest sound you can get? And you don't want AWD, traction control or anything else that helps the drivers to keep all that on the road?

Do you want them to clone drivers, who crash spectaculary and deadly each race? Or a completely straight and wide racing track, without any corners and ample place to take over? And no racing when the weather is bad? And half the weight of the car being very serious crash protection? They could reach a speed of more than 500 km/h that way!

Radio control might work.

AWD isnt needed at all, the old BMW's with 1000+ bph didnt had AWD and AWD probably is to heavy as its been tried before and dropped because it didnt work. TC? well cars are already full of TC to begin with and even no TC wouldnt be so much of a problem as the cars could easily generate enough downforce if the FIA didnt had all those stupid aerodynamic regulations. Thats also one of the reasons there is so little overtakin. FIA has all sorts of engine and aero rules to improve overtaking while the problem of overtaking lies in cars not being able to generate enough downforce with the current rules to get close behind a aother car to overtake.

And as far as safety goes, did you ever see the old F1 races? Pro cycling is conciderd alot more dangerous than strapping yourself in a F1 car. No I dont want people die in insanly dangerous cars but there is alot of room to make the cars go faster and keep it reasonable safe. I say reasonable safe because its still motor racing. These guys earn a million dollars for each race, the do that knowing the risk, they shouldnt bitch. In the old days drivers wouldnt even wear seatbelt because theyd rather be trown out of the car because that was alot safer. Now that is racing. Not that I want it to be that dangerous, but risk is part of the job and nobody forces you to do it.

 

[Davros]

personally the aero package thing may be a good idea
if i had my way id bring back slicks and bring in a rule that cars must produce zero downforce

 

[DJ12]

yes, but the FIA will limit the engines so no insane amounts of BHP anymore. Also, even with turbos a 9krpm engine wont sound like a 19k one.

According to the BBC the engines will produce roughly the same amount of horsepower the current engines do, (~900 bhp)

I'll reserve judgment about the noise until I actually hear it. It won't sound the same as an engine screaming it's tits off, but that doesn't mean to say it isn't going to sound better.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I can live with the biofuel, Koeningsegg got biofuel engines too and they actually produce more bhp than when you but petrol/gas/bezine

No. Koeningsegg doesn't have special biofuel engines. Their engine just happends to support the ethanol+gasoline mix, which gives all cars a hp boost compared to normal gas. Just like all non-diesel Saab's can run on the ethanol + gasoline mix.

But v6 engines? F1 should be the pinnackle of motorsports, those cars shouldnt have 2 cilinders less than your average american car.

Amount of cylinders have nothing to with power outputs these days (well, it does, but only on theoretical levels we cannot reach because of restrictions anyway.) BMW proved that in the 1970s, with 1.5 litre V6 engines that dynoed to 1400+ hp.

9000 rev limit? That will be a real treat on the ciruit, cars will sound like taxi's.

My Merc CLK 500K Kleeman has a rev limit at 8.000, it sounds very different from all cars except for other high powered Mercs. Their new V8 AMG engines sounds like spitfire planes, also at around 8k rev limit.

In fact, Ferrari's have about the same rev limit, but sound engineering (Ferrari spends $10 million a year on designing the best exhaust systems, that not only do their job as good as possible, but making the car sound as good as possible).

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

personally the aero package thing may be a good idea
if i had my way id bring back slicks and bring in a rule that cars must produce zero downforce

Yeah that sounds great, can you explain to me how you will get a car to stay on the ground doing 300+kmph while generating no downforce? Or do you rather see all cars doing 50 at most? F1 isnt about people having the same cars, if you want that, go watch A1 or something.

According to the BBC the engines will produce roughly the same amount of horsepower the current engines do, (~900 bhp)

I'll reserve judgment about the noise until I actually hear it. It won't sound the same as an engine screaming it's tits off, but that doesn't mean to say it isn't going to sound better.

I believe the 'official' statement was 770bhp, but I could be wrong (though I did read that number on multiple sites).

As far as the sounds goes, hear how the average supercar sounds and you'll know what you'll get more or less. Defenitly not a bad sound, but nothing like you expect out of what is supposed to be the most advanced cars around.

No. Koeningsegg doesn't have special biofuel engines. Their engine just happends to support the ethanol+gasoline mix, which gives all cars a hp boost compared to normal gas. Just like all non-diesel Saab's can run on the ethanol + gasoline mix.

I know, but it runs on biofuel.

Amount of cylinders have nothing to with power outputs these days (well, it does, but only on theoretical levels we cannot reach because of restrictions anyway.) BMW proved that in the 1970s, with 1.5 litre V6 engines that dynoed to 1400+ hp.

I know that too, but its more of a mental thing. Whats next? 4 cilinder engines? that just isnt cool. More is better F1 should be about tech, and that makes a V12 better.

My Merc CLK 500K Kleeman has a rev limit at 8.000, it sounds very different from all cars except for other high powered Mercs. Their new V8 AMG engines sounds like spitfire planes, also at around 8k rev limit.

In fact, Ferrari's have about the same rev limit, but sound engineering (Ferrari spends $10 million a year on designing the best exhaust systems, that not only do their job as good as possible, but making the car sound as good as possible).

I know that. I love the sound of the F40, especially when it downshifts and gives that ''ploppy'' noise. But that isnt what F1 should sound like. That sound should rip true your whole body, you shouldnt only be able to hear in on the circuit, but also way from the circuit.

Anyway, this is getting a bit offtopic, how do you guys feel about the rules? should there be more and more useless rules? or should the FIA let F1 be F1 again?

 

[RobertR1]

FIA has all sorts of engine and aero rules to improve overtaking while the problem of overtaking lies in cars not being able to generate enough downforce with the current rules to get close behind a aother car to overtake.

This is wrong. Allowing MORE downforce means the car in front will use up more air and leave behind more "dirty air' which the car behind will suffer from even more.

Overtaking would be greatly improved by lowering downforce, thus the car behind isn't as effected by the dirty air and giving them slicks for more mechanical grip.

Once the car behind can use mechanical grip to make up for the lack of aero grip when trailing another car(s) in close proximity through corners, they can then stay close and use the draft down the straights to better sling shot themselves past or attempt atleast.

The problem now is that you can't follow the car infront close enough through a set of corners to be within good drafting distance down the straight. Adding MORE downforce makes it worse, not better.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Not really. Allowing more downforce would mean the car behing would be able to come closer without losing grip. What is disturbing the airflow of the car is not the downforce, but teams that try to disrupt the flow of air on purpose so the car behind them isnt able to generate enough downforce to race close behing a other car. So what you need is more downforce. This has been said by multiple drivers on more that one occasion.

Lowering downforce in itself isnt a solution at all cause the only thing it will do is make the cars slower because they dont have enough grip to take fast corners, thus making for even less overtaking because now about the only way to overtake is to outbrake someone. But do that you already need to be relative close, wich is very hard because of the lack of downforce. Using slicks isnt going to help, the tires still need to be pressed to the ground hard to generate their grip, so more downforce is what you want for that, not less. By all means less downforce means less grip wich means slower cars. You cant build a car that is able to race close to a opponent with only mechanical grip, you need something that lets the car stick to the ground when you are doing 300+kmph, that cant be done with mechanical grip, you need downforce for that, and the closer you get the more you'll need.

 

[DJ12]

A car makes a hole in the air, therefore the car following behind won't have the same amount of air going over it's wings so won't have the same levels of downforce.

Going back to ground effect would sort it I reckon, but then we'd probably see cars flying round the harpin in Monaco at 180mph.

 

[_xxx_]

TOC, go watch a DTM race, there you can hear the sound of a lower-rev turbocharged engines more or less like we have them in series cars. IMO, they sound even better than F1 cars right now. And loud as hell, too. These are V8, though.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

A car makes a hole in the air, therefore the car following behind won't have the same amount of air going over it's wings so won't have the same levels of downforce.

Going back to ground effect would sort it I reckon, but then we'd probably see cars flying round the harpin in Monaco at 180mph.

Yeah bring back the brabham fancar

Too bad the FIA will never allow cars with the groundeffect anymore.

TOC, go watch a DTM race, there you can hear the sound of a lower-rev turbocharged engines more or less like we have them in series cars. IMO, they sound even better than F1 cars right now. And loud as hell, too. These are V8, though.

As far as I know there isnt really any DTM on dutch tv, also I dont really like these kind of series, look to much like normal cars to me.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I want turbocharged V12's back, 1200 - 1400bhp engines is what I want to see.

The race cars in the 80's never used V12 turbos. They were 1.5l with Turbos.

The Renault RS01 was well known for its Renault-Gordini V6 1.5 L turbocharged engine, the first regularly used turbo engine in Formula One history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_F1#Renault_in_the_1970s_and_1980s

The Renault RS01 was the first F1 car to be powered by a turbocharged engine. Designed by André De Cortanze and Jean-Pierre Jabouille, it first appeared at the 1977 British Grand Prix. The rules of F1 at the time permitted 3.0 litre engines of natural aspiration, with a clause for a 1.5 litre supercharged or turbocharged engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_RS01
http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/1684/369/

US

 

[Davros]

"Yeah that sounds great, can you explain to me how you will get a car to stay on the ground doing 300+kmph while generating no downforce? "

easy the weight of the car + by zero downforce that does not count downforce that is canncelled out by lift its the cars reliance on downforce that is hindering overtaking imho rely on mechanical grip and you will get more overtaking

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

F1 cars weight 600kilo, that is way to little weight. If the effective weight of the car is only 600kg you cant take corners like the cars do now, there is no way that you can generate enough mechanical grip without the use of downforce and the races will become either extremely dangerous (wich the FIA wont allow) or extremely slow.

Zero downforce is just a no go, more downforce is needed for what you want, not less.

 

[Davros]

and then the car behind will be even more disadvantaged in the corners

60's f1 cars didnt have any aero aids true corner speeds were lower although some of that was due to the skinny tyres (they would corner much faster on todays wide slicks) nobody thinks 60's f1 was slow and boring (and if the weight needs to be increased to improve mechanical grip so be it any slowdown in top speed can be overcome with higher engine power + dont forget no aero devices generating downforce also mean no aero devices generating drag did you know the bugatti veyron needs 260bhp to reach 160mph to increase its speed by another 100mph takes a further 750bph thats drag)

you seem to be forgetting with your more downforce argument that if your behind another car your downforce dissapears giving the guy infront an advantage you seem to think if you give the cars even more downforce that it will overcome the loss it wont you will have a situation were the car infront will corner at incredable speeds but the car trying to follow will have no grip unless he backs off out of the turbulent air of the leading car increasing the distance and making it harder to catch the leading car in the straights. cars reliant on downforce need a smooth airflow to generate it cars will not generate much downforce in turbulent air and turbulent air spoiling the generation of downforce cannot be overcome by giving them even more downforce
its not like the more a car generates downforce the more it will be disadvantaged closely folowing a car untill you reach a certain point were it generates so much downforce its no longer disadvantaged it doesnt work like that