What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[CMSMJ1]

So, if the ACO would decide that LMP1-cars should have at least 1200 bhp, the FIA should follow and make Formula 1-cars to produce even more power?

Besides, in the late-1960s and the 1970s Formula 1 didn't have the most powerful engines. In Can-Am the engines produced much more power.

If it's safe enough for an LMP1 to have that power, it's logical F1 can be safe to have that powerlevel as well. F1 has to be to pinnacle if it wants to be economically viable. The engineers and drivers see it like this as well.
So yes F1 would have to move up to 1200hp.

This ^^^^ =D>

[rjsa]

Seriously, most of the discussion here sounds like a bunch of vegans discussing the menu new for a steak house.

We (ticket buying people) want louder, faster and neat looking.

[ACRO]

true, but the f1 lives from us, the ticket buying people ...

[rjsa]

You guys need to install Grand Prix Legends and taste how it felt to floor a Lotus 49. It would just snap on you and throw a 360 under a cloud of smoke.

Setting a course for F1 apart from from raging engines and crazy drivers is just like boxing without punches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC3WT5Jw6Ag

[WhiteBlue]

true, but the f1 lives from us, the ticket buying people ...

May I ask how many F1 tickets have you bought and since when?

You guys need to install Grand Prix Legends and taste how it felt to floor a Lotus 49. It would just snap on you and throw a 360 under a cloud of smoke.

The video is inaccurate because the 49 wasn't the first car with stressed engine. With a power to weight ratio of 0.77 it is not a huge achievement compared to 31 year earlier Autounion Type C with 0.69 bhp/kg. And it is rather poor compared to a 2013 F1 car featuring a power/weight ratio of 1.25. The power junkies of this board would puke all over it if someone would seriously suggest it and call it the end of F1.

[godlameroso]

Do F1 cars use intake restrictors? If not they're gonna find that 650hp is going to end up being more like 800.

[djos]

true, but the f1 lives from us, the ticket buying people ...

May I ask how many F1 tickets have you bought and since when?

Seeing as you put the question out there WB, I've been to 3 Melbourne GP's and 4 Adelaide GP's at my own expense.

I try to go every few years as it's bloody expensive!! Last ticket in '07 cost me almost $500AUD for 4 days in the grandstand on pit straight opposite the pits near the start finish line.

btw I moved back to Adelaide mid '07 so it's a lot harder for me to justify going now as i have to factor in transport and accommodation costs + WAF.

[strad]

The 49 was a V-8,,,apples and oranges...

Compare with say the Cosworth 1500cc 4cyl....I think we will do a lot better and will have just fine racing.

1498 c.c. Bore: 80,96 mm. Stroke: 72,75 mm Four cylinders

Compression ratio: 10,5 – 11 to 1

Gross horsepower rating: 120 b.h.p. @ 6,500 r.p.m.

Gross torque rating: 110 lb.ft @ 5,000 r.p.m.

[WhiteBlue]

Do F1 cars use intake restrictors? If not they're gonna find that 650hp is going to end up being more like 800.

I think it was stated several times that the engines will be fuel flow restricted to 650 bhp. So going up to the full ICE 800 hp would require you to improve the efficiency considerably. By my calculations you would have to rise BTE from 32.5 to 40% to be able to run the full horse power with the restricted fuel flow. Not very likely IMO.

[Pingguest]

In that case, won't the fuel-flow limit thus effectively be a power cap?

While I like very much the Cosworth philosophy of total freedom of the engine with only fuel limitation as the formula constraints I'm afraid that the working group will not go down that path. The haggling over the engine layout and displacement has shown that they are not inclined to go down that path.

Whether Formula 1 should adopt the global racing engine or become a fuel formula, depends on what Formula 1 decides it wants to be: road relevant or socially relevant (hence not only relevant for automotive industry).

[Just_a_fan]

Let's reduce minimum weight by 100 kg and keep all the safety/crash tests or even increase them.
Not much good in being forced to carry xx kg ballast weight around, all the time.
The mindset of bring back KERS and increase the weight is flawed - IMHO, and shows the limitations of the KERS technology at this point in time.

Agreed. Just allow a small amount of moveable ballasy e.g. 10kg to allow for the differing balance requirements of different tracks. Ban bany other ballast. If the teams want to move a battery around to change the ballasting then fine, but making a car light just so you can lug 80-100kg of tungsten around a track is perverse.

If they want to force KERS on teams, then say that none-KERS cars have to carry ballast equal to the heaviest KERS system on the grid plus 10kg. And make them carry that ballast at least 250mm above the reference plane in two pieces, one each side of the fuel tank (so it can't be used to preferentially ballast the car). That way you don't need to increase the total weight to allow KERS to remain competitive.

[WhiteBlue]

In that case, won't the fuel-flow limit thus effectively be a power cap?

Yep, at least for the teams that do not find efficiency improvements from their engines engines and regeneration. If you have better power train efficiency you have more power. Not a bad idea.

[747heavy]

and you would need to run a comon fuel, or specify the fuel very very strictly,
otherwise it will become the formula of the fuel suppliers.

[xpensive]

According to Christian Horner, the Mercedes-powered cars are already running on nitromethane.

[747heavy]

.....