"Our attempts to make Formula One greener is ruining the sport" - Bernie Ecclestone

Glaucus said:
I wouldn't just like DRS it's not racing, just rubbish push to pass. Might as well just be a time trial.
Let alone safety, I don't think anyone wants to go back to loosing several drivers a year.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the person who used to argue that F1 is too restricted and should be able to build the best car you can as the pinnacle of motorsport?

What's changed your mind?

No one is going to die if the car are cornering a bit faster. The lack of element of risk is what had Schumacher and co willing to run each other off the road.

With the current rev limit it would be interesting to know what BHP they could pull without the fuel per second restriction, out of curiosity rather than in race use.
 
dannyjo22 said:
Aren't you the person who used to argue that F1 is too restricted and should be able to build the best car you can as the pinnacle of motorsport?

What's changed your mind?

No one is going to die if the car are cornering a bit faster. The lack of element of risk is what had Schumacher and co willing to run each other off the road.

With the current rev limit it would be interesting to know what BHP they could pull without the fuel per second restriction, out of curiosity rather than in race use.
Click to expand...

Not for absolutely years. Cost, safety etc
It would be cool to see a much mire open formula, but you wouldn't have the teams, the funding wouldn't be there etc.


However what you probably talking about is limited derestricting. It needs opening up in certain areas that can be developed, combine to going back to mechanically grip limited rather than aero (which has happened this year, so very happy with that). There's basically nothing left in ICE to develop.
There is however lots of development routes left in ERS, if the rules allowed. From capturing and using more power, to just using prototype batteries that can either reduce weight or store more power.
So open up the ERS aside and reduce fuel by 5% every two years or something.


This is where formula-e really interested me, but VIA has zapped a lot of that with the rules.
There's no need to limit F-E speed. It could be like the golden era of F1, where teams could develop in so many areas. Which just isn't testable in F1.
But despite the lack of speed and thus safety isn't an issue and the whole powertrain being in such infancy, they've gone and restricted it like modern F1.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
F1 is also carbon neutral as well and has been for years probably decade or so now.
Click to expand...

To be "carbon neutral" is not actually that difficult. It is to some extent just a way for businesses to boast, and can be achieved by buying carbon offsets and not actually doing anything differently.

e.g. "I will pay you an offset equivalent to planting 10,000 trees, because that's what I estimate my annual carbon footprint is"..."ok, here's your badge, you're carbon neutral, buddy!"..."cool".

Of course the biggest businesses will change processes, but you only have to look at how many trucks the F1 use to haul the equipment, and the thought of 30% more fuel efficient engines seem to pale in to insignificance :(
 
Yes it is easy but it's better than nothing? But it is not just about fuel saving. Its about retaining manufactures. Renault would have left and hinda would not of come back.

Its about maintaining sensible speeds whilst gaining massive of energy in other areas. Ie limiting fuel, but gaining all that energy back through the two ERS units.

So people really need to get of the silly it's only done it for a green image.

So yeah these arguments really are silly. We would have two less engine manufacturers, we would have less technological PU, we would have had less powerful engines.
Let alone the benefits of going back to mechanical grip limited series, rather than aero limited.
 
I'll bring out the loose quote again:

Nigel Roebuck used to say maybe it was merciful Villeneuve died when he did because 82 was followed by the fuel economy years when racers had to throttle back and not race to conserve fuel. Roebuck always used to say that was anathema to someone like Gilles and he probably would have quit the sport rather than do "economy runs".
Click to expand...

It's been going on, for one reason or another, for decades.
 
What about the night race? Thats got use juice like its going out off fashion and they are talking about more night races. Will that not make the whole fuel saving ecconess of the new rules pointless.
 
I think its because it's more about strategy than foot to the floor racing, as well as things like DRS and ERS which allows your opponent to sale passed you with no skill on the straights and there's nothing the guy in front can do. Plus the cars are getting slower and sound like lawn mowers.

Edit, no one cares about how a team manages its tyres and fuel, and they also don't want to hear the team saying 'slow down and set your engine to economy mode' or some such like.
 
Last edited:
The cars getting slower is nothing particularly new either.

Of the 19 tracks on the calendar this year, only 6 have a lap record set more recently than 2004.
 
And how many of those 6 first appeared on the calendar after 2004?

As Glaucus has been saying, not liking the engines is one thing, but some if the stuff people are saying to make it sound like a disaster is just silly.
 
3 - Circuit of the Americas, Yas Marina and Marina Bay.

The other 3 being Silverstone, Catalunya and Suzuka, of which Silverstone was set in 2004 and 'reset' when they altered the layout.
 
oldbag said:
I think its because it's more about strategy than foot to the floor racing, as well as things like DRS and ERS which allows your opponent to sale passed you with no skill on the straights and there's nothing the guy in front can do. Plus the cars are getting slower and sound like lawn mowers.

Edit, no one cares about how a team manages its tyres and fuel, and they also don't want to hear the team saying 'slow down and set your engine to economy mode' or some such like.
Click to expand...

Yes this so much, watching cars slow down to maintain fuel and tires etc it's not exciting to watch at all. Some people may appreciate the strategy in it but i want to watch the cars going to the limit right till the end. DRS is a joke imo and should be removed.
 
The tyres so far seem much better this year, that's a positive. Shame they still make them use both sets and make them stop at all. If someone can run the hard tyre and not stop once and win, let them.
 
quite an interesting article that go's into some of the history of the fuel flow limit. Personally I think its not quite right to look at it as greener or eco and more about getting the most power for the same amount of fuel which is a sound strategy and surely something you'd want to chase in the pinnacle of motorsport. Fuel efficiency has been part of the sport, and now we are more exposed to it, its an advantage to have a more efficient engine. Remember the rumours about Renaults v8 being better on fuel allowing cars like the red bull to run lighter. Hasn't hurt them if true.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/technology-explained/f1-2014-why-fuel-flow-is-limited/
 
Last edited:
Spie said:
That's exactly how I feel.

I do feel that this year's rule changes will be looked back on as a huge mistake. I believe the popularity of F1 will fall as a result and there will be a return to real engines without the sheer nonsense of the green pretence.
Click to expand...

Would you be happy with an F1 series with only 2 engine suppliers, instead of the 4 that will be racing next year?

McLaren and Ferrari (and Porsche) all produce hybrids and Ferrari have just released their first turbo charged car since the F40.
 
Alibaba99 said:
Would you be happy with an F1 series with only 2 engine suppliers, instead of the 4 that will be racing next year?
Click to expand...

Yes I would if it meant using more exciting engines and a return to real racing.

Alibaba99 said:
McLaren and Ferrari (and Porsche) all produce hybrids and Ferrari have just released their first turbo charged car since the F40.
Click to expand...

The McLaren P1 uses a 3.8L V8 producing a maximum of 903BHP.

The LaFerrari uses a 6.3L V12 producing a maximum of 950BHP.

The Porsche 918 uses a 4.8L V8 producing a maximum of 887BHP.

All 3 cars produce more power than this year's F1 cars.

Notice anything else? Where are the V6s?

Further proof that F1 isn't at the cutting edge anymore. It's just an out of touch, over regulated, boring endurance race. It's popularity has suffered considerably over the last 6 years and this is why.
 
Spie said:
The McLaren P1 uses a 3.8L V8 producing a maximum of 903BHP.

The LaFerrari uses a 6.3L V12 producing a maximum of 950BHP.

The Porsche 918 uses a 4.8L V8 producing a maximum of 887BHP.

All 3 cars produce more power than this year's F1 cars.

Notice anything else? Where are the V6s?

Further proof that F1 isn't at the cutting edge anymore. It's just an out of touch, over regulated, boring endurance race. It's popularity has suffered considerably over the last 6 years and this is why.
Click to expand...

And all 3 weigh considerably more as well. There is no real relevance in comparing road engines to F1 units. The McLaren F1 could out accelerate an F1 car above 120 or so, no complained that suddenly F1 cars should go quicker.

The F1 engines are a damn sight more cutting edge than the obsolete v8s from last year. 40% less fuel used in Oz with close to 100bhp more than last year.
 
Spie said:
All 3 cars produce more power than this year's F1 cars.
Click to expand...

And last years. (edit - in fact, I think you'd need to go back to the old F1 turbos to find an F1 engine as powerful as those?)

Except this years engine technology actually bears some resemblance to those turbo and hybrid engines beyond 'lots of cylinders'

You could rewrite your post almost word for word with the old V8s and instead of 'Where are the V6s?' be asking 'Where are the turbos? Where are the hybrid systems? Further proof that F1 isn't at the cutting edge anymore'

To many, the actual technology the engine is comprised of has more bearing than the number of cylinders it has.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom