Discussion in 'Formula 1' started by Chris Jenkins, Jun 23, 2011.
Better, however they should really increase the 10k RPM limit, atleast to 14k.
I still find the gimmick of trying to be green in F1 highly ironic though, if anything just change the fuels but the engines isn't going to do **** anyway.
I agree. A few tweaks to the F1 calander would drastically reduce the fuel consumption of F1 a whole.
Instead of going back and forth from Asia/Europe/North America 2-3 times each a year.
lol F1 are becoming tree hugers...thats alright, i guess il just have to watch teh 50, 60s, 70s, 80s 90s and early 2000 seasons starting 2014.
IIRC, they are planning to have them at 12k, not 10
As far as fuel consumption goes, here's an interesting "fact". Quotation marks are because I can't find the quote online, but I seem to recall one of the V8 Supercar commentators mentioning that the total fuel consumption of all the cars (and possibly even the trucks, and anything else) throughout the whole season of racing is less than a single transatlantic Boeing 747 flight.
You seriously post some stupid comments Diego - the environment is the most important thing to everyone, destroying it because of a sport is simply stupid - I'm no tree hugger, but I'm all for using less emissions as long as the quality of racing is not affected.
what impact will it have in the scheme of everything?
Considering there still is no road relevence its still a completely pointless move and made to be just a gimmick at best.
Lol then why reduce the power, they arent trying hard at all. Is not astupid comment, F1 means fast and precise. not lowering the standards but improving them.
Anyways if im not mistaken there are manufacturers out there using "green" technology that are really powerful and fast when it comes to the track, I hope thats what the FIA is thinking about or else lets go watch Indy cars go round and round.
Diego, you really should look into these things before you make stupid comments. They spoke to engineers from the current engine manufacturers - Ferrari, Mercedes, Cosworth and Renault - and they said they think they can deliever what they want from the engines, whilst maintaining current power levels.
I think the internal combustion engine will have less power, but KERS will have a more aggressive implementation (more power, for longer), and will compensate...
I thought 4 cyl was a good idea.. but yes, for Ferrari and others perhaps is more interesting to have a "V6"
obviously there are more effective ways to make F1 greener, but this is about sending a message to the public...
The "save fuel / reduce pollution" menthality is not to save the world reducing the pollution that F1 produces, its give an example, like the WTCC "make cars green" or "make roads safe" programs.
Everybody knows F1 is by definition anti-environment, and totally unnecesary from that point of view.
From what i have heard and this is something which i have not seen to be changed yet. Is 600hp 10kRPM limit with an aggressive KERS to make up the power defeict, weither that KERS will be included in the throttle automactily or its a push to pass with more enregy stored its still unclear but either way, naturally they will be noticabley slower.
You said they planned on 12K RPM limit could you send me the link on where you saw this?
From what I've seen I have only heard 10k
Adrian Newey on the BBC F1 Forum said it would be around 14-16k RPM
14-16k isn't quite so bad
Luke, I think it was BBC but I can't find it again
Latest news is 1.6 litre V6 from 2014, max 15,000rpm, overall power to remain around 750bhp. However that is the latest news, I would not be surprised if all that changes well before 2014 because off track things are in play again.
Read this blog for some interesting thoughts.
Yes he did, remember watching it. Just bring back V10s. I think we all miss the sound of it.
Too bad the current trend these days is gimmicks, and not solutions.
Well it's officially been approved by the FIA, so no going back now.
No official confirmation on rev limits though.
Separate names with a comma.