Yes, obviously, but you fail to understand FIA allowed 1.6 displacemente engines to compensate exactly that point, so they´re not castrating anything because they increased engine displacement to compensate the lower power output of an engine wich must last 4-5 GPs.Manoah2u wrote:in what world are you living? obviously with the same investments possible, the engines would have been more powerful as they can wear the very same engine down a whole lot more untill it cracks. are you really that thick?Andres125sx wrote: And this is the proof, you think if they would have allowed 1 PU per GP they would be more powerful. Sorry but that´s a mistake.
In that case the PU would be smaller, period.
you're not the one that is able to grasp it.FIA has never pretended 1500bhp PU, they always targeted close to 1000bhp PU, that can be achieved with 1.6 displacement engines wich must last 4-5 GPs or with 1.0-1.2 displacement engines wich can be replaced at every GP. This is the concept you don´t grasp
The discussion is about how FIA is castrating F1 and what to do to improve it.
I dont give a flying funk about what FIA pretends to target.
You fail to understand too that with 1.0 or 1.2 L displacement engines you're also performance-restricted if they're mandated to do 5 races instead of 1. Whether it's a 1.0 L, a 1.5 L, a 3.0 L, whether it's a 4-cyl, a V6, a V8 or V10/V12,
if you tighten the rope of engine usage, and tighten the rope of fuel usage, you hamper and castrate possible output.
When they wrote the new rules the target was close to 1000bhp PUs, it doesn´t matter if they do it with 1.0 engines for one race or 1.6 engines for 4 races, power and perfomance will be similar, so no castration at all.... if you´re thinking about letting the manufacturers build what they want (free engines), in that case yes, obviously FIA is castrating F1 teams with their rulebook, as they´ve always do, that´s their job
Sorry to say this, but that reasoning is a bit warp, looks like you´re trying to justify your point of viewManoah2u wrote:Technological advancement and engineering has resulted in current 1.6L V6 engines running on a fuel of 100KGS,
when the older 3.0 L V10 engines N/A took about 180KGS of fuel.
Are they more reliable? Yes, but not because of the fuel usage. They are because the old V10's were allowed to do
much more mileage on a single engine. Are they more economic? Basically yes, but one still forgets that the current
hybrid powertrains HELP the engines. In other words, if a classic 3.0 L V10 had an output of 1000 HP, and used let's
say 200 KGS of fuel, than every HP costs 5 KG of fuel. so let's say the electric part runs 150 HP.
That equals 30 K's of fuel less needed.
That means they now 'only' need 170 KG of fuel.
Is F1 more economic now?
Basically no. Because the same engine still uses the same amount of fuel, they just compensated the loss of power with
an electric auxilarry. When they managed to make that very same engine displacement [3.0 V10 N/A] run on 150 KG of fuel paired to that electric system, and STILL produce the same 1000HP figure THEN yes, it is more economic. NOT if it turns out that they now produce 850 HP instead of the 1000 HP and compensate that through mandated aerodynamic changes to keep the laptimes similar.
Any reason you "discount" the power of the electrical part? That 150hp are not coming from the air, but from the fuel tank too so no, they´re not using 100kg of fuel to produce 850bhp, with 100kg of fuel they´re producing 1000bhp (your rough numbers)
So using 150kg of fuel to produce 1000bhp would be more economical than using 100kg of fuel to produce 850 bhp.......Manoah2u wrote:Is F1 more economic now?
Basically no. Because the same engine still uses the same amount of fuel, they just compensated the loss of power with
an electric auxilarry. When they managed to make that very same engine displacement [3.0 V10 N/A] run on 150 KG of fuel paired to that electric system, and STILL produce the same 1000HP figure THEN yes, it is more economic.
