Formula 1 teams agree to abandon 2013 rules revolution

dannyjo22 said:
I liked the old 1 hour format, it just needed more laps and loss of laps every 15 minutes. Start with 16 laps available and lose 4 every 15 mins for example.
Click to expand...

Isn't that pretty much the system we have now anyway? Only with enforced ad breaks for every broadcaster other than the BBC?
 
< tries to get thread back onto original topic >


Losing ground effect is disappointing. Keeping DRS is good imo as is the continual removal of the tiny winglets that are always creeping back in. Not too sure on the narrower front wings, anyone know wide they were before they changed it in 2009?
 
Duke said:
< tries to get thread back onto original topic >


Losing ground effect is disappointing. Keeping DRS is good imo as is the continual removal of the tiny winglets that are always creeping back in. Not too sure on the narrower front wings, anyone know wide they were before they changed it in 2009?
Click to expand...

Agree about ground effect and DRS, and also the winglets. The winglests are another stupid hole in the rules. They should have said no aero devices between the front and rear axles, but instead they made them in relation to sidepod ends and lengths from axels and stuff, meaning a 10cm gap could be made in the middle, hence why all the wings are tall and thin.

Front wings are now 1.8m wide, so I expect pre 2009 wings were 1.4 or 1.5ish?
 
FIA WMSC have approved the 2013 regs as below:

2013 Regulations

The Technical Regulations for 2013 were approved:

- Power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm, with extensive energy management and energy recovery systems (now known as ERS), reflecting the decision taken by the WMSC in December 2010
- The aerodynamic regulations have been based on 2011 rules, with modifications in order to improve the aerodynamic efficiency: together with the power train rules, this will enable a 35% reduction in fuel consumption
- The height of the tip of the nose will be limited to ensure better compatibility in a T-bone style accident
- A limitation on transmissions (gear ratios, number of gearboxes) in order to decrease costs
- The overall weight of the car must be no less than 660kg

In consultation with the main stakeholders, and following the outcome of this consultation, a fax vote by the WMSC could be considered by 30 June latest to redefine the implementation date of these technical regulations.
Click to expand...

12'000 RPM :( *sign*
More weight increase too - weird as the 1.6l 4 pot should be lighter than the V8
Will the 4pot have a minimum weight as well?
 
2019 rules
1ltr corsa engines
Maximum of 7,000rpm
Racers that DNF, or no longer wish to partake in a wet race get complimentary ice cream and an optional Coke.

*facepalm*
 
It would be very easy to say no rules, but there has to be some framework.

Also this is a showcase for future technology which will be on road cars in the future.

There is no way that cars are going to have for example 5 litre engines in the future, everyone is trying to improve fuel efficient and go for smaller engines, so F1 must go in that direction.
 
Well yes the 750 is combined BHP. Gp2 cars are already faster in race pace accoribg to Mark webber. Blaming tires mainly and fuel.

Which is why the initial rules where better, derestriction Of kers and engine development in certain areas.
 
casperjr said:
It would be very easy to say no rules, but there has to be some framework.

Also this is a showcase for future technology which will be on road cars in the future.

There is no way that cars are going to have for example 5 litre engines in the future, everyone is trying to improve fuel efficient and go for smaller engines, so F1 must go in that direction.
Click to expand...

So set a maximum amount of fuel allowed per race, and let the teams decide what they want to run
 
rypt said:
So set a maximum amount of fuel allowed per race, and let the teams decide what they want to run
Click to expand...

This is what it should be and say every three years, reduce by 10% or what ever. To much cost savings in the wrong area. Only allow basic wings with no detail. Then the millions they spend on engines can be spent on real development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom