Engines Engineer 10/24/14 (Fri) 01:44:37 88a38e No. 10
What do you think of F1s policy towards the new engines? What are the long term implications, politically and in terms of sportsplay?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 10/24/14 (Fri) 05:13:34 88a38e No. 11
Good Question. The formula stayed the same for a very long time, and for good reason. 3.0 liters naturally aspirated or 1.5 liters turbo charged (with a boost limit) is a winning formula. The sport has always been about development and learning the ins, outs, plusses, and minuses of a given design paradigm.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Post last edited at 04/14/15 (Tue) 07:46:22
Backmarker 10/24/14 (Fri) 05:35:06 88a38e No. 13
I, essentially, agree with Burgermeister, I don't see the point with having the FIA constantly regulating engine/engine policy. Honestly many of the changes seem superfluous. Every team should try to play to their strengths, and heavily regulated engine formulas hinder teams the rely on stronger engines more than teams that play to other strengths (for example, Ferrari vs. Lotus.)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
DoctorsSmokeCamels 10/27/14 (Mon) 00:34:44 88a38e No. 42
>>11 I could not agree more. What the FIA has done is a travesty. Its especially ironic that they cant even grant an engine unfreeze for "environmentally friendly" reasons.
A team could develop some method of saving fuel, and because they're already in season and the engine is homologated, they would not be able make use of it. I fail to see how that encourages development or risk taking.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 10/29/14 (Wed) 02:15:23 88a38e No. 63
Remember that in the 60's they went they dropped from 4.5 to 1.5 liter and then back up to 3 liter engines to "add excitement" to the racing. When and if tv ratings and ticket sales drop they'll loosen the regs or bump up the engine power.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker ## Board Owner 10/29/14 (Wed) 05:06:31 88a38e No. 67
>>63 Agreed. I dream of them opening up the regulations and returning to the 3.5 liter N/A and 1.5 liter compressed (with boost limit).
F1 is a sport, not a show but there's no reason it should be so predictable and monotonous with no real skill involved in the engineering, driving, and strategy.
This formula is a disaster, I hope the failure of several grands prix will make that clear.
Cost cutting isn't necessary if people are interested in the sport, and as such, more people put money into it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Post last edited at 04/14/15 (Tue) 07:47:13
Backmarker ## Board Owner 10/31/14 (Fri) 03:40:31 88a38e No. 97
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play. >>63 Speaking of the 4.5 Liter formula, I watched this documentary on pre-formula one grand prix racing under the various formulas (including the 4.5 liter) the other day.
John Watson, the near world champion for Mclaren, is in it as well. Let me know what you think about it, because there are a few other publicly available videos I can point you towards if you like it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Post last edited at 04/14/15 (Tue) 07:47:30
Burgermeister ## Board Owner 11/13/14 (Thu) 23:51:19 88a38e No. 236
I am so excited. Recently there has been discussion of chucking the engine freeze completely. A one time relaxation of the engine freeze for 2015 would require unanimous agreement between the teams, but an end to the freeze altogether from 2016 onwards would only require a majority accord.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 11/14/14 (Fri) 05:47:26 88a38e No. 240
>>236 That would make too much sense. Personally while I would like to see something like that, I also wouldn't mind seeing Renault lie in their grave for another few years considering they were the ones insisting on forcing these regulations through in the first place.
Also, if you're into pre-war cars and you haven't already I would highly recommend finding
The Grand Prix Car by Lawrence Pomeroy, written in the late 1940s it covers pre-war racing in great detail as well containing some technical examples from cars at the time.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Burgermeister ## Board Owner 11/16/14 (Sun) 07:31:29 88a38e No. 256
>>240 As much as I am a glutton for punishment with regards to Renault, I think it's time we end this experiment gone awry.
I'll check out that book. I've always been fascinated with how cars of that period often had several well fleshed out systems (engine, supercharging, gearbox), but were completely marginal in other aspects (suspension, brakes). Thanks for the recommendation!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 11/28/14 (Fri) 16:30:46 88a38e No. 501
"Red Bull boss Christian Horner says Formula 1 cannot let the prospect of Mercedes quitting scare it away from switching to cheaper engine regulations for 2016. With some teams concerned that the high cost of the new turbo V6 engines are unsustainable for F1 in the long term, Horner is leading a push for a new power unit to be considered. He has suggested keeping the current V6 engine, but packaging it with standard energy recovery systems rather than each manufacturer developing its own. Such a move would antagonize Mercedes, which believes the hybrid element of the new power units is key to its marketing of the sport. There have been suggestions that if the engine rules are changed, then Mercedes could elect to quit F1 – especially if it has wrapped up another title next year." - from Autosport
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 12/01/14 (Mon) 06:37:10 88a38e No. 616
>>501 "spec" preceding any word is a dirty phrase.
ease up on the red bull conspiracies, its the teams being constantly at each others throats and not focusing on rules that work that get us to the point of having a shit formula.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 12/01/14 (Mon) 13:15:25 88a38e No. 619
>>616 Just poking fun at a dumb suggestion.
As for the teams, they seem entirely willing to vote through literally anything that they don't think will impact them. They look at spec parts, engine freezes, double points, standing restarts and other dumb shit and go "We're okay with this".
That's ridiculous. And people still say Bernie is the one out of touch.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Burgermeister ## Board Owner 12/03/14 (Wed) 07:44:02 88a38e No. 634
>>619 Understood then, I've found that a lot of teams "legislate from the bench" so to speak. It's ironic that even under FISA's imperious reign the rules weren't as ridiculous and ever changing.
The FRIC debacle really rubbed me the wrong way. Sauber and FI had a lousy or nonexistent system and got it banned in season (in season bans themselves are a tragedy) by jumping on the "Mercedes shouldn't have it" bandwagon.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Burgermeister ## Board Owner 12/13/14 (Sat) 09:06:20 88a38e No. 670
Ecclestone is old enough to be Santa, he's gray enough to be Santa, and while Saint Nick is the patron saint of prostitutes, Ecclestone is, well…hm not different.
All I want for Christmas is a limited restriction 3.0/3.5(Naturally Aspirated)//1.5(Forced Induction) engine formula. Can we get Mariah Carey to sing that? What about Hamilton's girlfriend, that'd be kitschy and relevant.
http://www.pitpass.com/53120/Ecclestone-pushing-for-return-to-V8s-or-V10s-or-anything Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ArytonIsAlive23 12/19/14 (Fri) 23:36:50 88a38e No. 870
>>868
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 12/19/14 (Fri) 23:59:42 88a38e No. 872
>>870 Heya mate I didn't think they can change the engine mid season. If I recall correctly they are given like a certain number of engines that they have to use and the extra upgrades or mostly aerodynamic.
I'm a bit of n00b at this but slowly getting more into this :D
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 12/22/14 (Mon) 02:07:38 88a38e No. 884
>>872 these new engines have astronomical cost. the hybrid system has the ability to put out a boost of ~100 horsepower but only for ~10 seconds at a time, so it can only be used as a boost, or to smooth the torque curve of the engine (which is screwy itself because
It is a 90 degree v6 (in the past, neither bank angle nor cylinder configuration were mandated, and manufacturers enjoyed success in their experimentation with those.) The v6 is an unbalanced engine (primary and secondary) and has awkward torque characteristics as a product of having fewer cylinders on power stroke at even intervals or at the same time. The only advantage of a v6 is packaging, and the packaging advantages are rendered moot by the turbocharger, hybrid unit, and all the extra cooling those require.
New engines with an open formula (only displacement dictated) would be thrilling. The v8s were mostly frozen in design by the end of their run, and that was silly.
I am open to new technology, as is nearly everyone here, but most of us would like that it be oval pistons, solenoid actuated valves, homogenous charge compression ignition, orbital engines, exotic materials, clever ecu work, or the like, as opposed to a mandated, heavy unreliable, development limited, uninspired, and expensive hybrid power system in a desperate attempt to be relevant to road cars.
If development was unfrozen and we went back to the 3.0 liter naturally aspirated/1.5 liter forced induction formula, manufacturers would be free to try any of the above things to make their (already small displacement engines) more efficient.
F1 engines that are on the forefront of free development will be road relevant simply by virtue of being internal combustion engines built by car companies. No doubt any innovation from the track that is feasible to implement in a road car will be made use of, and vice versa.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 01/16/15 (Fri) 17:10:28 88a38e No. 1054
These überstrict rules regarding engines are lame and only serve to dwindle the fan base because they aren't the fastest damn things ever put on a road course.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 04/14/15 (Tue) 04:04:32 88a38e No. 5059
I'm really tired of the half way points in this argument. The logic that hybrid shit needs to be mandated is inexplicable. The defeatist argument that this is the way things need to go for things to be cutting edge is tiresome because hybrids are not the future and are not worth investing in, especially in F1 which has nothing to do with fuel saving beyond completing a grand prix distance.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 04/14/15 (Tue) 06:36:04 88a38e No. 5060
Am I the only one with the mind set to go big and powerful v10s? Revs up to 22k? Ever car will once again be musical instruments, and the tracks the sheet music.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 04/14/15 (Tue) 06:38:30 88a38e No. 5061
>>5060 Plus iRacing.com is adding this years Mclaren.
We have the Willaims FW-31 (the 09 season car)
And it tears ass, sure it's just a sim but our fastest are pulling 43.5s at spa. We expect 52s and lower in the new Mclaren. Fuck being slow that's not why i spent 4 years earning my A class rank.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 04/14/15 (Tue) 07:33:23 88a38e No. 5065
1.5 turbo again seems like it would work if you don't think about it too hard. Keep in mind that power is also dependent on RPM, so an engine that may put out 1200 HP at 9000 RPM (numbers out of ass) should put out almost twice as much (not quite, due to pumping losses) at twice as fast at the same boost levels assuming one could make a turbo engine run that fast under high boost.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 04/14/15 (Tue) 08:07:23 88a38e No. 5067
>>5065 You're definitely on the right track, returning the track of the car to 2 meters will increase mechanical grip.
I question the need for the other aero rules, teams will not invest in aero that has winglets everywhere and aero that provides extremely marginal gains and dirty air, if there are easier and cheaper ways to get grip.
Stock block rules don't have a place in F1 (that said, if you want to take over Indycar and install such rules, that would be awesome).
Forced induction engines should simply have a boost limit. You might be on to something with the supercharging systems getting a different boost limit or more displacement.
At the same time though, I don't believe in giving any given technology an advantage.
Hybrid engines are a very easy way to cheat and use them as launch control. Redbull did this in 2013, and it's a huge reduction in driver skill.
Notably hybrid engines breach the rule on only having a single engine in a car, Keith Duckworth (the creator of the Cosworth DFV and therefore the patron saint of naturally aspirated engines) believed that Turbocharged engines also broke this rule, as it is a heat engine like a stirling engine. Ferrari were then injecting fuel into their turbocharger to make a gas turbine, that's definitely a breach, but I won't open the can of worms that turbochargers are) I would go one easier. Customer cars are allowed, and every part can be purchased and customized, but a works team cannot be created by the customer car manufacturer (which will allow a Lola, Dallara, March, or Reynard to produce cars, for cheaper kit teams, while insuring the whole grid is not made up of them). This rule isn't 100% necessary as it didn't exist before, and the whole grid wasn't made up of Marches.
Minimum weight didn't exist until 1970, and isn't necessary if chassis crush standards exist.
The rule that I really think is enormously important and frequently ignored is that there can be no driver aids (traction control, active suspension, active aero, anti lock brakes, and most often ignored: Auto revmatching gearboxes). Driver aids make it easier to drive, reduce the rate of driver error, and generally cheapen the racing. I know that they are cool, but the 1993 season is a pretty excellent reason why this is a terrible idea.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 04/15/15 (Wed) 04:48:01 88a38e No. 5108
>>5061 post a thread with your onboards!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 04/15/15 (Wed) 18:57:21 88a38e No. 5136
>>5108 Sure. Next GP is Saturday morning. brands Hatch full…. it's going to be insane with the Williams.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/05/15 (Sun) 00:31:34 88a38e No. 15923
>>240
Coming back to this, I decided to try and re-read The Grand Prix Car and came across this and found it rather relevant:
"For a few years after 1924 engineers felt, to some extent rightly, that the design of the racing car had become so specialised in conception, so costly in execution, that it could not be justified in relation to the ordinary motor car. Simultaneously the offer of motoring to the masses throughout the world reduced the commercial value of a win in racing, for the potential market was no longer composed mainly of well-to-do men of the world but of those middle people of moderate means who had small knowledge of, and less interest in, motoring sport."
I got the book from an old /o/ books torrent.
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:E69145E9E0976770003AA8952235530DBAAE2C97
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/05/15 (Sun) 01:38:55 88a38e No. 15924
>>15923
Good catch!
For sure the myth that racing will collapse without cost cutting is a persistent one. One that brought us the neutered corpse that is today's formula 1 and the IRL in addition to ruining plenty of other series.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/05/15 (Sun) 02:01:14 88a38e No. 15925
>>15924
I read it as more of an argument against the myth that is road-relevance as well as against the need to dumb down and appeal to as many people as possible.
More:
"It will be observed that the favoured rule has been a limitation on cylinder capacity, which naturally had the effect of forcing the pace in the development of small high-output engines. Considerable technical advances have, however, taken place in the periods when restriction by weight was imposed. Despite the many theoretical arguments in favour of a fuel consumption rating, proposals on these lines have normally been out-voted or ignored.
''''
It is interesting to observe that entrants have never welcomed complete freedom in the construction of racing cars. There has perhaps been a feeling that such liberty produces too many variables and makes an investment into a given design an unduly hazardous proposition."
It looks like it can also be downloaded from https://archive.org/details/ATSMKMSDUI.RMMGQ..1
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/05/15 (Sun) 02:06:52 88a38e No. 15926
>>15925
The stupid isn't new. Formula racing has always been about making the most of a given displacement, regardless of the configuration of the engine.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/05/15 (Sun) 05:08:08 88a38e No. 15935
>>15925
Maximum weight is actually a good idea for endurance racing. Also in Group C, Can Am, and imsa GTP we saw nearly complete freedom which worked out super well.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/05/15 (Sun) 22:18:15 88a38e No. 16510
What's the point of having a boost pressure limit? If I want to make a 1 liter engine with a higher boost pressure then why shouldn't I be allowed to?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/05/15 (Sun) 22:33:28 88a38e No. 16511
>>16510
The intention is to make it semi fair between naturally aspirated engines and forced induction engines. Forced induction engines weigh more, but if you can put ridiculous boost pressures into them, and over build them for such, they wont just dominate in qualifying, they'll also just have significantly more power.
Formula racing is about making the most of what you're given, and historically that has included a boost limit.
Keith Duckworth claimed that turbocharged engines should be illegal on the basis that they are a second engine on the car. I'm going to waive that because it creates good competition, and it isn't as if you are using a hybrid engine to be a traction aid for drivability issues.
As for your hypothetical 1 liter engine, you would want to have a 1.5 liter engine of any configuration turbocharged in order to get the maximum displacement per boost pressure.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/05/15 (Sun) 22:50:39 88a38e No. 16514
>>5067
>turbocharged engines also broke this rule, as it is a heat engine like a stirling engine
No, this is fucking retarded. A what drives the turbo is the same as what drives the pistons: pressure differential.
Also if people want to be this anal then each cylinder is really an individual engine.
>>16511
>As for your hypothetical 1 liter engine, you would want to have a 1.5 liter engine
No, what I want is a 1 liter engine because I as a constructor am good at making small high pressure engines. Why can't I have it?
Anyway
As long as we are discussing rules in general something I would like to see is a minimum driver + seat combination weight of somewhere around and a stipulation that the chassis must be able to accommodate a driver of a minimum height, both set to accommodate say 80% of the population (weight of coursed based on what fit people would weigh). There's no reason only midgets should get to drive, and statistically the current situation means the majority of the most skilled drivers can't compete because of their size.
In other words F1 drivers in general aren't really that good, they're just short.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/05/15 (Sun) 23:01:57 88a38e No. 16518
>>16514
1.5 liter limit is how it has always been, clearly you are allowed to have less displacement (leyton house march ran a 3.3 liter engine as they didn't have a 3.5 liter engine available), but not for any benefit in boost pressure.
If you want to run an unconventional engine without a limit (with the exception of maximum weight or maximum fuel load) go to world sports car/ endurance racing).
As for the midgets, I agree that short drivers shouldn't have the advantage they have. If we didn't have a minimum weight, this would not be as much of a problem. Before the minimum weight, superior drivers, regardless of weight or height were chose. Now, with teams unable to make the car lighter (and in most cases ballasting the car) there is a huge benefit in having a lighter driver as you can choose where you want the weight.
Minimum weight only ever served the purpose of making sure the cars weren't made from foil. Now that cars have safety standards they must pass, there is no such need for that restriction.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/05/15 (Sun) 23:17:13 88a38e No. 16519
>>16514
A piston on a common crank with another piston is not another engine, just as a supercharger driven off the crank is not another engine. Yet a heat engine that converts heat energy to compress air into combustion chambers is a second engine. A common crank pulls energy that would go towards the transmission and axle away, for purposes of smoothness, or adding more cylinders for lesser rotating mass on any given reciprocating cycle. This is not the same as using exhaust (usually wasted energy) to drive a mechanically separate compressor. Even if this is allowed, it is not exempt from the restrictions on forced induction engines (which turbocharged engines are irrefutably).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/05/15 (Sun) 23:27:31 88a38e No. 16521
If I may make it any simpler, Formula 1 sprint racing does not care how you did it, it cares about what category you fit into. If you made a light naturally aspirated machine, fine. If you made an aero dependant forced induction machine, fine. The only constraints are that the car is 2 meters wide, doesn't have electronic driver aids, and adheres to the restrictions that the engine categories have (which includes boost pressure).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/05/15 (Sun) 23:42:55 88a38e No. 16525
>>16521
And is single seater and has open wheels.
Really those are the first two definitions I would put down as they are the definition of a formula car.
Breaking either makes you a hybrid formula/sportscar.
Breaking both makes you 100% a sports car, no questions asked.
And before you mention the W196. It should never have been allowed and Mercedes should have those victories removed.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/06/15 (Mon) 00:01:46 88a38e No. 16526
>>16518
>1.5 liter limit is how it has always been
That is a stupid reason to do anything and with that reasoning we should still be using a 1950's formula.
>If we didn't have a minimum weight, this would not be as much of a problem.
>Now, with teams unable to make the car lighter (and in most cases ballasting the car) there is a huge benefit in having a lighter driver as you can choose where you want the weight.
This is a logical error, actually the opposite is true. The more ballast a constructor is already forced to use the less the value of the each additional kilo of ballast becomes.
Let's say they were forced to make the cars weigh a ton, meaning they would be able to use several hundred kilos of ballast. They would then be able to make the cars so perfectly balanced that gaining a few % more ballast by choosing a lighter driver would be of absolutely no consequence. In other words the heavier the cars are forced to use be less reason they will have to sacrifice a skilled driver to gain ballast for balancing.
This is not saying a minimum car weight is good or bad, just that your logic is entirely broken.
>>16519
>A piston on a common crank with another piston is not another engine
But you see, that is entirely arbitrary. If I take two lawnmower engines and connect a chain from each to the rear wheels of my cart do they magically become a single engine? If I connect both chains to a single axle so they run in sync do they now magically become a single engine? If I connect their cranks do each other and run just a single chain do they now magically become a single engine?
>a heat engine that converts heat energy
There is not anything like that on any car I can think of. The conversion of heat energy would demand a lowering of the exhaust temperature to not violate the law of conservation of energy, and this does not happen.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/06/15 (Mon) 17:53:27 88a38e No. 16564
>>16526
>That is a stupid reason to do anything and with that reasoning we should still be using a 1950's formula.
Formula 1 is that 3 liter NA/1.5 liter forced induction formula, that is what this formula is. Just as formula 5000 was 5 liter stockblocks. It's in the fucking name.
>In other words the heavier the cars are forced to use be less reason they will have to sacrifice a skilled driver to gain ballast for balancing.
Except the exact opposite is true historically. At the same time Colin Chapman was trying to get the FIA approve doped cardboard as a firewall (as an extreme weight saving measure because there was no minimum weight until 1970), he had Graham hill who by all estimates was in the 6 foot tall range driving for him. Innes Ireland who won lotus' first race was by no means a short, wiry man. Jack Brabham was a big guy.
When there was a minimum weight, most of the time, it was a theoretical safety measure that would prevent shortcuts in construction (this is now irrelevant as crash testing is mandated). The minimum weight for a good amount of F1 history was not reachable by all or most of the teams. Drivers like Alan Jones and Denny Hulme drove in this era. Ronnie Peterson was 5 foot ten inches and lotus engineered his car to accommodate him as Mario Andretti was a good deal shorter. Yet you don't see a consistent qualifying or race pace deficit on from Peterson to Andretti. Jody Scheckter (5 foot 10.5 inches) was substantially taller than Patrick Depailler, yet Jody Scheckter strongly outpaced him.
Moreover if the FIA cared about fuel economy, they would do away with minimum weight.
Champcars (which were made substantially heavier as they had to handle the stresses of driving on ovals and which were often made from aluminum not carbon fiber) weighed 789 kg. F1 cars of today weigh 702 kg, which is enormous for cars that are carbon fiber and ostensibly at the top level of motorsport.
If the cars were free to weigh less, the value of a lighter driver would be less (as the driver is currently the only way permissible to reduce the weight of the car). A lighter car is often worth more than a lower center of gravity on a heavier car because lightness makes a car faster everywhere, not just in cornering.
A piston on a common crank is not an arbitrary system. The pistons share a block, crank, and most importantly, a harmonic balance. 2 two cylinder engines connected to the rear axle together will operate much differently in harmonics than a single four cylinder engine, even if that four cylinder engine is not inline in configuration.
A turbocharger is a heat engine.
A turbocharger takes high pressure and high temperature exhaust, and uses that pressure to drive an impeller, which in a separate compressor connected by a shaft, compresses cold intake air.
The hot exhaust gasses expand, and drive that impeller. The work done on the impeller, to drive the compressor cools the exhaust temperature. Generally a turbocharged engine has colder final exhaust temperature than a naturally aspirated one, as the exhaust energy is used to drive the turbocharger.
Pressure and temperature drop for the exhaust after it has passed through the turbocharger.
You can even work this out with the ideal gas law PV=N RT .
To humor your retarded logic and truly unwarranted aggressiveness (we can always tell it's you TorFag because you're always an angry cunt for no reason) a piston and another piston would be at least the same kind of engine. a turbocharger is not a reciprocating engine, and thus is not remotely the same thing as a piston, so even if you had your way, a set of pistons and a turbocharger would be considered a hybrid engine, because it operates with two different kinds of mechanisms to drive two different heat processes.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/06/15 (Mon) 20:43:52 88a38e No. 16570
>>16564
Damn, rekt him sunnn.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Backmarker 07/06/15 (Mon) 20:47:00 88a38e No. 16571
>>16514
>No, this is fucking retarded.
>>16526
>That is a stupid reason to do anything
>just that your logic is entirey broken.
Torfag, y so salty? Sweden started prohibiting immigration or some shit?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.