Andrew Benson obviously is a bit of a clueless type. He mixes fuel consumption and efficiency figures. He also seems to have no idea what turbo compounding means. If you know what was being discussed you understand what they have decided.ringo wrote:Anything in that bbc article thatwasn't in quotes i will take with a pinch of salt. 50% increase in engine efficiency is madness.
I didn't notice a mention of the cylinder layout in that article. Has an inline arrangement been confirmed elsewhere?WhiteBlue wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 255871.stm
F1 ENGINE RULES FROM 2013
- 1.6-litre, inline four-cylinder turbos with energy recovery
- Fuel mass flow restrictions and total fuel cap
- Fuel efficiency to increase by a target of 50%
- Overall power to remain same at approx 750bhp
- Checks and balances to ensure costs are contained and performance across all engines remains comparable
- Plan for advanced turbo compounding to be introduced in subsequent years
- Power of Kers energy recovery systems to increase from 60kw in 2011 to 120kw in 2013
This post quotes the first tweat by ScarbsF1 who kicked off the discussion.Formula None wrote:I didn't notice a mention of the cylinder layout in that article. Has an inline arrangement been confirmed elsewhere?
Couldn't agree more.xpensive wrote:With due respect to F1T's most elder and prominent members, I have a gut-feel that this is all show to mark ambition and not much more, when engine manufacturers involved, xcept Renault which lags 50+ Hp to Merc, likes it just the way it is?
In 2008 BMW thrown away real chance of getting the crown and, at least for me, shown they do not understand yet what the sport is about.WhiteBlue wrote:At least BMW could still be here.
Almost probably. Given that some engine manufacturers don't want to change because they have a perceived 'locked in' advantage, and hid behind the guise of "It's too expensive", I wonder what has magically changed now?xpensive wrote:With due respect to F1T's most elder and prominent members, I have a gut-feel that this is all show to mark ambition and not much more, when engine manufacturers involved, xcept Renault which lags 50+ Hp to Merc, likes it just the way it is?
It takes a really long time to design all the components.. I think a freeze on the engine type but no limits on the boost and fuel is a better idea. no limits mechanical creativity engine wise will take more than just 2 years notice.hecti wrote:I just cant see why they cant put a limit on engine development budget, say 30 million pounds... and then state that you have to make the end of the race with 160kg of fuel. end of story, you go home do your maths and in 2013 we have 3 or 4 types of engines and 12 different cars.
you could even have the manufactures publicly report engine horsepower, imagine that! and never install another engine freeze, and every time a manufacturer changes a component they have to re-publicize the hp figure.
This is what formula one should be all about, technology and engineering vs technology and engineering. Simple as that. There should be limits, but not limits on creativity, design and aerodynamics, but basic ground rules like max fuel for a race and your car must fit in a box x by y by z meters big.
Users browsing this forum: MrPotatoHead, Paul, Wil992 and 24 guests